» Articles » PMID: 31010110

Microgrooves and Microrugosities in Titanium Implant Surfaces: An In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2019 Apr 24
PMID 31010110
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The physical characteristics of an implant surface can determine and/or facilitate osseointegration processes. In this sense, a new implant surface with microgrooves associated with plus double acid treatment to generate roughness was evaluated and compared in vitro and in vivo with a non-treated (smooth) and double acid surface treatment. Thirty disks and thirty-six conical implants manufactured from commercially pure titanium (grade IV) were prepared for this study. Three groups were determined, as described below: Group 1 (G1), where the samples were only machined; group 2 (G2), where the samples were machined and had their surface treated to generate roughness; and test group 3 (G3), where the samples were machined with microgrooves and the surface was treated to generate the roughness. For the in vitro analysis, the samples were submitted to scanning microscopy (SEM), surface profilometry, the atomic force microscope (MFA) and the surface energy test. For the in vivo analyses, thirty-six implants were placed in the tibia of 9 New Zealand rabbits in a randomized manner, after histological and histomorphometric analysis, to determine the level of contact between the bone and implant (BIC%) and the bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO%) inside of the threads. The data collected were statistically analyzed between groups ( < 0.05). The in vitro evaluations showed different roughness patterns between the groups, and the G3 group had the highest values. In vivo evaluations of the BIC% showed 50.45 ± 9.57% for the G1 group, 55.32 ± 10.31% for the G2 group and 68.65 ± 9.98% for the G3 group, with significant statistical difference between the groups ( < 0.0001). In the BAFO% values, the G1 group presented 54.97 ± 9.56%, the G2 group 59.09 ± 10.13% and the G3 group 70.12 ± 11.07%, with statistical difference between the groups ( < 0.001). The results obtained in the evaluations show that the surface with microgrooves stimulates the process of osseointegration, accelerating the healing process, increasing the contact between the bone and the implant and the area of new bone formation.

Citing Articles

On the Use of Nanoparticles in Dental Implants.

Bokobza L Materials (Basel). 2024; 17(13).

PMID: 38998274 PMC: 11242106. DOI: 10.3390/ma17133191.


Conometric Connection for Implant-Supported Crowns: A Prospective Clinical Cohort Study.

Lupi S, De Martis D, Todaro C, Isola G, Beretta M, Rodriguez Y Baena R J Clin Med. 2023; 12(24).

PMID: 38137716 PMC: 10743547. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12247647.


Titanium Coated with Graphene and Niobium Pentoxide for Biomaterial Applications.

Corado H, Moura de Souza Soraes F, Barbosa D, Lima A, Elias C Int J Biomater. 2022; 2022:2786101.

PMID: 36506263 PMC: 9729051. DOI: 10.1155/2022/2786101.


Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review.

Fiorillo L, Cicciu M, Tozum T, Saccucci M, Orlando C, Romano G Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(5).

PMID: 35269211 PMC: 8911578. DOI: 10.3390/ma15051979.


Professional Mechanical Tooth Cleaning Method for Dental Implant Surface by Agar Particle Blasting.

Sato H, Ishihata H, Kameyama Y, Shimpo R, Komasa S Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(22).

PMID: 34832206 PMC: 8622555. DOI: 10.3390/ma14226805.


References
1.
Gaggl A, Schultes G, Muller W, Karcher H . Scanning electron microscopical analysis of laser-treated titanium implant surfaces--a comparative study. Biomaterials. 2000; 21(10):1067-73. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(00)00002-8. View

2.
Cooper L . A role for surface topography in creating and maintaining bone at titanium endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 84(5):522-34. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2000.111966. View

3.
Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J . Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants with different surface characteristics subjected to static load. A study in the dog (II). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12(3):196-201. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003196.x. View

4.
Soboyejo W, Nemetski B, Allameh S, Marcantonio N, Mercer C, Ricci J . Interactions between MC3T3-E1 cells and textured Ti6Al4V surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002; 62(1):56-72. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.10221. View

5.
Frenkel S, Simon J, Alexander H, Dennis M, Ricci J . Osseointegration on metallic implant surfaces: effects of microgeometry and growth factor treatment. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002; 63(6):706-13. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.10408. View