Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The influence of implantoplasty on the diameter, chemical surface composition, and biocompatibility of titanium implants

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of the study was to assess the influence of implantoplasty (IP) on the diameter, chemical surface composition, and biocompatibility of titanium implants in vitro.

Material and methods

Twenty soft tissue-level (TL; machined transmucosal—M and rough endosseous part—SLA) and 20 bone-level (BL; SLA) implants were allocated to IP covering 3 or 6 mm of the structured surface (SLA) area. The samples were subjected to diameter, energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), and cell viability (ginigval fibroblasts, 6 days) assessments.

Results

Median diameter reductions varied between 0.1 (TL 3 mm) and 0.2 mm (TL 6 mm). EDX analysis revealed that IP and M surfaces were characterized by a comparable quantity (Wt%) of elements C, O, Na, Cl, K, and Si, but a significantly different quantity of elements Ti and Al. When compared to SLA surfaces, significant differences were noted for elements C, O, Na, Ti, and Al. At BL implants, the extension of IP (i.e., 3 to 6 mm) was associated with a significant increase in cell viability.

Conclusions

IP applied to SLA implants was associated with (i) a minimal diameter reduction, (ii) an undisturbed cell viability, and (iii) a chemical elemental composition comparable to M surfaces.

Clinical relevance

This specific IP procedure appears to be suitable for the management of exposed SLA implant surfaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Salvi GE, Mombelli A, Faddy M, Lang NP, Implant Complication Research G (2012) Anti-infective surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. A 12-month prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:205–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schwarz F, Schmucker A, Becker J (2015) Efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent 1:22

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Schwarz F, Sahm N, Iglhaut G, Becker J (2011) Impact of the method of surface debridement and decontamination on the clinical outcome following combined surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: a randomized controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 38:276–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Romeo E, Ghisolfi M, Murgolo N, Chiapasco M, Lops D, Vogel G (2005) Therapy of peri-implantitis with resective surgery. A 3-year clinical trial on rough screw-shaped oral implants. Part I: clinical outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res 16:9–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Matarasso S, Iorio Siciliano V, Aglietta M, Andreuccetti G, Salvi GE (2013) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of a combined resective and regenerative approach in the treatment of peri-implantitis: a prospective case series. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:761–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Romeo E, Lops D, Chiapasco M, Ghisolfi M, Vogel G (2007) Therapy of peri-implantitis with resective surgery. A 3-year clinical trial on rough screw-shaped oral implants. Part II: radiographic outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res 18:179–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schwarz F, Sahm N, Mihatovic I, Golubovic V, Becker J (2011) Surgical therapy of advanced ligature-induced peri-implantitis defects: cone-beam computed tomographic and histological analysis. J Clin Periodontol 38:939–949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schwarz F, John G, Becker J (2015) Reentry after combined surgical resective and regenerative therapy of advanced peri-implantitis: a retrospective analysis of five cases. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 35:647–653

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ramel CF, Lussi A, Ozcan M, Jung RE, Hämmerle CH, Thoma DS (2015) Surface roughness of dental implants and treatment time using six different implantoplasty procedures. Clin Oral Implants Res doi: 10.1111/clr.12682

  10. Schwarz F, John G, Mainusch S, Sahm N, Becker J (2012) Combined surgical therapy of peri-implantitis evaluating two methods of surface debridement and decontamination. A two-year clinical follow up report. J Clin Periodontol 39:789–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schwarz F, Hegewald A, John G, Sahm N, Becker J (2013) Four-year follow-up of combined surgical therapy of advanced peri-implantitis evaluating two methods of surface decontamination. J Clin Periodontol 40:962–967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwarz F, John G, Sahm N, Becker J (2014) Combined surgical resective and regenerative therapy for advanced peri-implantitis with concomitant soft tissue volume augmentation: a case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 34:489–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwarz F, Sahm N, Becker J (2014) Combined surgical therapy of advanced peri-implantitis lesions with concomitant soft tissue volume augmentation. A case series. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:132–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chan HL, Oh WS, Ong HS, Fu JH, Steigmann M, Sierraalta M, Wang HL (2013) Impact of implantoplasty on strength of the implant-abutment complex. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:1530–1535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bollen CM, Papaioanno W, Van Eldere J, Schepers E, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D (1996) The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res 7:201–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jepsen S, Berglundh T, Genco R, Aass AM, Demirel K, Derks J, Figuero E, Giovannoli JL, Goldstein M, Lambert F, Ortiz-Vigon A, Polyzois I, Salvi GE, Schwarz F, Serino G, Tomasi C, Zitzmann NU (2015) Primary prevention of peri-implantitis: managing peri-implant mucositis. J Clin Periodontol 42(Suppl 16):152–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwarz F, Mihatovic I, Becker J, Bormann KH, Keeve PL, Friedmann A (2013) Histological evaluation of different abutments in the posterior maxilla and mandible: an experimental study in humans. J Clin Periodontol 40:807–815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwarz F, Mihatovic I, Golubovic V, Eick S, Iglhaut T, Becker J (2014) Experimental peri-implant mucositis at different implant surfaces. J Clin Periodontol 41:513–520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nothdurft FP, Fontana D, Ruppenthal S, May A, Aktas C, Mehraein Y, Lipp P, Kaestner L (2015) Differential behavior of fibroblasts and epithelial cells on structured implant abutment materials: a comparison of materials and surface topographies. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17:1237–1249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. John G, Becker J, Schwarz F (2015) Modified implant surface with slower and less initial biofilm formation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17:461–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rupp F, Scheideler L, Olshanska N, de Wild M, Wieland M, Geis-Gerstorfer J (2006) Enhancing surface free energy and hydrophilicity through chemical modification of microstructured titanium implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A 76:323–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Toma S, Lasserre J, Brecx MC and Nyssen-Behets C (2015) In vitro evaluation of peri-implantitis treatment modalities on Saos-2osteoblasts. Clin Oral Implants Res doi: 10.1111/clr.12686

  23. Mouhyi J, Sennerby L, Wennerberg A, Louette P, Dourov N, van Reck J (2000) Re-establishment of the atomic composition and the oxide structure of contaminated titanium surfaces by means of carbon dioxide laser and hydrogen peroxide: an in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2:190–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schwarz F, Papanicolau P, Rothamel D, Beck B, Herten M, Becker J (2006) Influence of plaque biofilm removal on reestablishment of the biocompatibility of contaminated titanium surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 77:437–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors kindly appreciate the skills and commitment of Dr. Daniel Martens (performing the implantoplasty) and Ms Tina Hagena (in vitro analyses) (both Department of Oral Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gordon John.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

The study was self-funded by the Department of Oral Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Germany. The titanium implants were kindly provided by the Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schwarz, F., John, G. & Becker, J. The influence of implantoplasty on the diameter, chemical surface composition, and biocompatibility of titanium implants. Clin Oral Invest 21, 2355–2361 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-2030-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-2030-x

Keywords

Navigation