» Articles » PMID: 15508981

Improved Retention and Bone-tolmplant Contact with Fluoride-modified Titanium Implants

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2004 Oct 29
PMID 15508981
Citations 52
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether a fluoride modification of the titanium surface would have an effect on bone response after implantation.

Materials And Methods: Titanium-oxide-blasted titanium implants with and without fluoride modification were investigated in a rabbit tibia model. Quantitative analysis of surface roughness, biomechanical interlocking, and in vivo tissue reactions in rabbit bone at 1 and 3 months after placement were compared.

Results: The fluoride-modified test implants had a slightly smoother surface (Sa: 0.91 +/- 0.14 microm) than the unmodified control implants (Sa: 1.12 +/- 0.24 microm). Significantly higher removal torque values (85 +/- 16 Ncm vs 54 +/- 12 Ncm) and shear strength between bone and implants (23 +/- 9 N/mm2 vs 15 +/- 5 N/mm2) were measured for the fluoride-modified implants after 3 months. The histomorphometric evaluations demonstrated higher bone-to-implant contact for test implants at 1 month (35% +/- 14% vs 26% +/- 8%) and 3 months (39% +/- 11% vs 31% +/- 6%) after placement.

Discussion: Implant surface modification with fluoride may result in morphologic and physiochemical phenomena that are of significance for the bone response. Another possible explanation for the findings in the present study is that a surface modification changes the surface chemical structures to be more suitable for bone bonding.

Conclusion: Based on the biomechanical and histomorphometric data, the fluoride-modified titanium implants demonstrated a firmer bone anchorage than the unmodified titanium implants. These implants achieved greater bone integration than unmodified titanium implants after a shorter healing time.

Citing Articles

Comparative clinical evaluation of the stability of implants using double acid etching treatment with and without the addition of fluoride solution: A randomized clinical trial.

Hoppe F, Formiga M, Garcia G, Manfro R, Bortoluzzi M J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2024; 28(2):185-191.

PMID: 39411742 PMC: 11472973. DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_52_23.


Nanofeatured surfaces in dental implants: contemporary insights and impending challenges.

Komatsu K, Matsuura T, Cheng J, Kido D, Park W, Ogawa T Int J Implant Dent. 2024; 10(1):34.

PMID: 38963524 PMC: 11224214. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-024-00550-1.


Surface Topography Has Less Influence on Peri-Implantitis than Patient Factors: A Comparative Clinical Study of Two Dental Implant Systems.

Hussain B, Grytten J, Rongen G, Sanz M, Haugen H ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2024; 10(7):4562-4574.

PMID: 38916970 PMC: 11234333. DOI: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c01809.


Comparative Analysis of Surface Modification Techniques for Assessing Oral Implant Osseointegration: An Animal Study.

K S K, Sreevidya B, T K R, Bm D, Dedeepya N, Kamal Badiyani B Cureus. 2024; 16(2):e54014.

PMID: 38476793 PMC: 10928455. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.54014.


Nanoengineering and Surface Modifications of Dental Implants.

Alamoudi A Cureus. 2024; 16(1):e51526.

PMID: 38304686 PMC: 10833059. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51526.