Influence of the Titanium Implant Surface Treatment on the Surface Roughness and Chemical Composition

Overview

Journal Materials (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Date 2020 Jan 16

PMID 31936686

Citations 32

Authors

Ana Isabel Nicolas-Silvente

Eugenio Velasco-Ortega

Ivan Ortiz-Garcia

Loreto Monsalve-Guil

Javier Gil

Alvaro Jimenez-Guerra

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The implant surface features affect the osseointegration process. Different surface treatment methods have been applied to improve the surface topography and properties. Trace of different elements may appear on the implant surface, which can modify surface properties and may affect the body's response. The aim was to evaluate the roughness based on the surface treatment received and the amount and type of trace elements found. Ninety implants (nine different surface treatment) were evaluated. Roughness parameters were measured using white-light-interferometry (WLI). The arithmetical mean for , , , and of each implant system was calculated, and Fisher's exact test was applied, obtaining values between 0.79 and 2.89 µm. Surface chemical composition was evaluated using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) at two times: as received by the manufacturer (AR) and after sputter-cleaning (SC). Traces of several elements were found in all groups, decreasing in favor of the Ti concentration after the sputter-cleaning. Within the limitations of this study, we can conclude that the surface treatment influences the roughness and the average percentage of the trace elements on the implant surface. The cleaning process at the implant surface should be improved by the manufacturer before assembling the implant.

Citing Articles

Enhancement of titanium surfaces using different acid solutions at room temperature to improve bone cell responses.

Linn T, Salamanca E, Ho C, Wu Y, Chiu H, Chang W J Dent Sci. 2025; 20(1):373-383.

PMID: 39873087 PMC: 11763216. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2024.06.011.

Effect of non-contact induction heating on HA coatings and bone cement, an ex vivo study.

Kamphof R, Cama D, Mesman-Vergeer J, G H H Nelissen D, G C W Pijls D F1000Res. 2025; 13:443.

PMID: 39866728 PMC: 11757918. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.148225.2.

Long-Term Clinical Study on Sandblasted-Acid-Etched Surface Dental Implants: 12-Year Follow-Up.

Velasco-Ortega E, Pato-Mourelo J, Lopez-Lopez B, Monsalve-Guil L, Moreno-Munoz J, Lopez-Lopez J Materials (Basel). 2025; 18(1.

PMID: 39795828 PMC: 11722049. DOI: 10.3390/ma18010183.

Influence of the Surface Topography of Titanium Dental Implants on the Behavior of Human Amniotic Stem Cells.

Riedel R, Perez-Amodio S, Cabo-Zabala L, Velasco-Ortega E, Maymo J, Gil J Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(13).

PMID: 39000523 PMC: 11242699. DOI: 10.3390/ijms25137416.

The Mineral Apposition Rate on Implants with Either a Sandblasted Acid-Etched Implant Surface (SLA) or a Nanostructured Calcium-Incorporated Surface (XPEED): A Histological Split-Mouth, Randomized Case/Control Human Study.

Menhall A, Lahoud P, Yang K, Park K, Razukevicius D, Traini T Materials (Basel). 2024; 17(13).

PMID: 38998421 PMC: 11243467. DOI: 10.3390/ma17133341.

References

Nishiguchi S, Nakamura T, Kobayashi M, Kim H, Miyaji F, Kokubo T . The effect of heat treatment on bone-bonding ability of alkali-treated titanium. Biomaterials. 1999; 20(5):491-500. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(98)90203-4. View

von Wilmowsky C, Moest T, Nkenke E, Stelzle F, Schlegel K . Implants in bone: part I. A current overview about tissue response, surface modifications and future perspectives. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 18(3):243-57. DOI: 10.1007/s10006-013-0398-1. View

Hanein D, Sabanay H, Addadi L, Geiger B . Selective interactions of cells with crystal surfaces. Implications for the mechanism of cell adhesion. J Cell Sci. 1993; 104 ( Pt 2):275-88. DOI: 10.1242/jcs.104.2.275. View

Ferraris S, Spriano S, Pan G, Venturello A, Bianchi C, Chiesa R . Surface modification of Ti-6Al-4V alloy for biomineralization and specific biological response: Part I, inorganic modification. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2011; 22(3):533-45. DOI: 10.1007/s10856-011-4246-2. View

Ferraris S, Cazzola M, Peretti V, Stella B, Spriano S . Zeta Potential Measurements on Solid Surfaces for Biomaterials Testing: Surface Charge, Reactivity Upon Contact With Fluids and Protein Absorption. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2018; 6:60. PMC: 5954101. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00060. View

Massaro C, Rotolo P, De Riccardis F, Milella E, Napoli A, Wieland M . Comparative investigation of the surface properties of commercial titanium dental implants. Part I: chemical composition. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2004; 13(6):535-48. DOI: 10.1023/a:1015170625506. View

Velasco E, Monsalve-Guil L, Jimenez A, Ortiz I, Moreno-Munoz J, Nunez-Marquez E . Importance of the Roughness and Residual Stresses of Dental Implants on Fatigue and Osseointegration Behavior. In Vivo Study in Rabbits. J Oral Implantol. 2016; 42(6):469-476. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00088. View

Sun J, Tsuang Y, Chang W, Li J, Liu H, Lin F . Effect of hydroxyapatite particle size on myoblasts and fibroblasts. Biomaterials. 1997; 18(9):683-90. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(96)00183-4. View

Ferraris S, Cochis A, Cazzola M, Tortello M, Scalia A, Spriano S . Cytocompatible and Anti-bacterial Adhesion Nanotextured Titanium Oxide Layer on Titanium Surfaces for Dental and Orthopedic Implants. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019; 7:103. PMC: 6520600. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00103. View

10.

Deppe H, Wolff C, Bauer F, Ruthenberg R, Sculean A, Mucke T . Dental implant surfaces after insertion in bone: an in vitro study in four commercial implant systems. Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 22(3):1593-1600. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2262-4. View

11.

Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A . Oral implant surfaces: Part 1--review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17(5):536-43. View

12.

Mihara I, Havelund R, Gilmore I . Embedding-Free Method for Preparation of Cross-Sections of Organic Materials for Micro Chemical Analysis Using Gas Cluster Ion Beam Sputtering. Anal Chem. 2017; 89(9):4781-4785. DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b00511. View

13.

Velasco-Ortega E, Ortiz-Garcia I, Jimenez-Guerra A, Monsalve-Guil L, Munoz-Guzon F, Perez R . Comparison between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants: In Vivo Study. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20(13). PMC: 6651692. DOI: 10.3390/ijms20133267. View

14.

Velasco-Ortega E, Alfonso-Rodriguez C, Monsalve-Guil L, Espana-Lopez A, Jimenez-Guerra A, Garzon I . Relevant aspects in the surface properties in titanium dental implants for the cellular viability. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016; 64:1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.03.049. View

15.

Vijayaraghavan V, Sabane A, Tejas K . Hypersensitivity to titanium: a less explored area of research. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013; 12(4):201-7. PMC: 3508103. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0139-4. View

16.

Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T . Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15(3):331-44. View

17.

Ferraris S, Truffa Giachet F, Miola M, Bertone E, Varesano A, Vineis C . Nanogrooves and keratin nanofibers on titanium surfaces aimed at driving gingival fibroblasts alignment and proliferation without increasing bacterial adhesion. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017; 76:1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2017.02.152. View

18.

Sansone V, Pagani D, Melato M . The effects on bone cells of metal ions released from orthopaedic implants. A review. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2013; 10(1):34-40. PMC: 3710008. DOI: 10.11138/ccmbm/2013.10.1.034. View

19.

de Bruijn J, van Blitterswijk C, Davies J . Initial bone matrix formation at the hydroxyapatite interface in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995; 29(1):89-99. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820290113. View

20.

Fukuda A, Takemoto M, Saito T, Fujibayashi S, Neo M, Pattanayak D . Osteoinduction of porous Ti implants with a channel structure fabricated by selective laser melting. Acta Biomater. 2011; 7(5):2327-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2011.01.037. View