Elsevier

Dental Materials

Volume 37, Issue 2, February 2021, Pages e69-e84
Dental Materials

Does implant surface hydrophilicity influence the maintenance of surface integrity after insertion into low-density artificial bone?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2020.10.024Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Treatment to obtain superhydrophile surfaces increases surface roughness and area.

  • Insertion into low- density artificial bone tends to equalize surface roughness parameters.

  • Surface treatment affects the amount of Ti particles released during implant insertion.

  • Benchtop micro X-Ray Fluorescence (μ-XRF) spectrometers effectively detect Ti along the bone bed.

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the influence of hydrophilicity on the surface integrity of implants after insertion in low-density artificial bone and to determine the distribution of titanium (Ti) particles along the bone bed.

Methods

Forty-eight dental implants with different designs (Titamax Ex, Facility, Alvim, and Drive) and surface treatments (Neoporos® and Aqua™) were inserted into artificial bone blocks with density compatible with bone type III-IV. Hydrophobic Neoporos® surfaces were obtained by sandblasting and acid etching while hydrophilic Aqua™ surfaces were obtained by sandblasting, acid etching, and storage in an isotonic 0.9% NaCl solution. The surface integrity was evaluated by Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and the surface roughness parameters (Sa, Sp, Ssk, Sdr, Spk, Sk, and Svk) and surface area were measured with Laser Scanning Confocal Microscopy before and after installation. Bone beds were inspected with Digital Microscopy and micro X-Ray Fluorescence (μ-XRF) to analyze the metallic element distribution along the bone bed.

Results

Acqua™ implants had higher initial Sa and a pronounced reduction of Sa and Sp during insertion, compared to NeoPoros® implants. After insertion, Sa and Sp of Acqua™ and NeoPoros® implants equalized, differing only between designs of Acqua™ implants. Surface damage was observed after insertion, mainly in the apical region. Facility implants that are made of TiG5 released fewer debris particles, while the highest Ti intensity was detected in the cervical region of the Titamax Ex Acqua™ and Drive Acqua™ implants.

Significance

Physicochemical modifications to achieve surface hydrophilicity created a rougher surface that was more susceptible to surface alterations, resulting in more Ti particle release into the bone bed during surgical insertion. The higher Ti intensities detected in the cervical region of bone beds may be related to peri-implantitis and marginal bone resorption.

Introduction

Oral rehabilitation with titanium (Ti) implants routinely achieves survival rates of ≥94% over 10 years of follow-up [1]. The biocompatibility and corrosion resistance due to the stable superficial oxide layer [2] combined with the surface microtopography [3] and implant geometry [4] are responsible for the successful osseointegration [5] and long-term mechanical stability of Ti implants. At the same time, studies showing high prevalence rates of peri-implantitis [6], progressive marginal bone loss [7], and high risk of implant failure in low-density bone [8,9] highlight that field of implant dentistry still faces challenges that require further innovation.

New implant designs, surface treatment procedures [[10], [11], [12]], and surgical milling protocols [13] primarily focus on maximizing and accelerating osseointegration to reduce the potential for implant failure. For this reason, modification of topographical features and optimization of surface roughness has been the focus of research on implant surfaces over the last decades [14]. Surface roughness affects initial events of osseointegration such as cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation, directly influencing biomaterial-bone interaction [3,15,16]. Implants with a moderately rough surface (Sa = 1–2 μm) are more attractive for new bone formation, presenting a higher bone-implant contact rate (BIC) and removal torque than those with smooth (Sa < 0.5 μm) or rough (Sa > 2 μm) surfaces [17,18].

Currently, much research focuses on the interaction between topographic features and wetting properties through physicochemical modifications [14]. These modifications jointly influence the topographic, mechanical, and surface chemical properties, resulting in varying surface roughness, increasing surface energy, reducing surface tensions [19], changing surface charge and chemical composition, which induces surface wettability and bioactivity [14,[20], [21], [22]] and may also increase resistance to the shear forces generated during implant insertion [23]. Wettability is quantified by the liquid–solid contact angle (Ɵ), and water Ɵ is classified as follows: superhydrophilic (Ɵ very close to 0°), hydrophilic (Ɵ < 90°), hydrophobic (Ɵ > 90°), and superhydrophobic (Ɵ > 150°) [24].

The synergism of micro and nano-roughness with surface wettability influences the molecular and cellular interactions of the implant surface with the bioliquids (e.g., blood), optimizing and accelerating the initial bone healing period [14,24,25]. Studies have shown that hydrophilic implants show superior clinical results than hydrophobic implants in the early bone healing period with higher BIC [[26], [27], [28]], bone area fraction occupied [27,28] and primary stability [19], which indicates their suitability for critical situations, such as in cases with low density bone and immediate loading [19,29].

The SLActive® surface (Straumann®, Basel, Switzerland) is the most widely investigated superhydrophilic surface [14]. More recently, the Acqua™ surface (Neodent®, Curitiba, PR, Brazil) has been made available on the market [27,28]. Both surfaces are created by abrasive sandblasting, combined with acid-etching and rinsing for surface neutralization in a protective nitrogen environment [20,[26], [27], [28]]. The obtained surface has a high surface energy, a positive surface charge, and a lower Ɵ, and is stored in an isotonic 0.9% NaCl solution [20,26] to preserve the surface hydroxylation and to avoid contamination with organic components and carbonates until installation [14,25].

From a tribological point of view, wettability is associated with the application of lubricant fluids between the contact surfaces and relative motion. The primary objective of lubrication is to prevent contacts between asperities on both surfaces, reducing the coefficient of friction and surface wear [30]. Rupp et al. suggested that bioliquids dynamically wet biomaterials during relative movements, such as when implants are inserted into the blood-filled surgical wound [14]. Blood is a viscous fluid constituted of plasma, an aqueous solution containing salts, gases, proteins, amino acids, and glycoproteins. Proteins and erythrocyte volume determine blood viscosity, which influences the formation of a lubricating film [31]. In addition, the apparent viscosity of blood depends on the shear rate [32]. Shear stress is generated from implant friction against bone during insertion, creating a dynamic stress concentration along the bone-implant interface, causing bone rupture [33], surface damage to the implants and release of wear particles in the peri-implant region [[33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]]. The surface area at the bone-implant interface affects the insertion torque and directly relates to roughness and implant geometry [39].

During the insertion of implants, Ti particles are assumed to be released [34,40]. In vitro studies revealed damage to implant surfaces and the presence of Ti particles in the bone bed after implant insertion [[34], [35], [36]41]. Surfaces with higher average roughness and predominance of peaks showed a greater reduction of roughness parameters and an increased Ti particle release [35,36]. However, there are currently few studies that investigated the impact of hydrophilicity on the implant surface integrity after insertion [36].

Ti particles are commonly detected around peri-implant tissues with the highest Ti concentration at the bone-implant interface [[41], [42], [43], [44], [45]]. At present, there are no studies that map Ti intensity along the bone bed using a benchtop micro X-Ray Fluorescence (μ-XRF) spectrometer. Ti debris can generate an exacerbated inflammatory process with increased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines related to the osteolytic process [46]. Recent studies suggested that Ti particles at the bone-implant interface may influence the pathogenesis of peri-implantitis diseases and marginal bone resorption [[47], [48], [49], [50], [51]]. The evaluation of the deleterious effects of surface wear and Ti particles release by hydrophilic implants is difficult to assess since studies that quantify the surface integrity of hydrophilic implants [36] and the spatial distribution of Ti intensity around the implant by Synchrotron Radiation X-Ray Fluorescence (SRXRF) spectrometer are still scarce [41,52,53], in part because access to SRXRF is limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to (1) analyze the effect of surface hydrophilicity of implants with different geometries on surface integrity after insertion, (2) to evaluate the Ti intensity distribution along the bone bed, and (3) to establish the benchtop μ-XRF system as an accessible methodology for spatial analysis of metallic particles.

Section snippets

Experimental design

This in vitro study evaluated the influence of hydrophilicity on surface changes after implant installation in artificial bone blocks (Sawbones, Pacific Research Laboratories Inc., Washington, DC, USA) with density compatible with bone type III and IV (combination of block grade 20 (0.32 g/cm3) and sheets grade 40 (0.64 g/cm³). Forty-eight commercial implants (Neodent®, Curitiba, PR, Brazil) with 4 different designs and 2 surface treatments were investigated (6 implants per group): 1 - Titamax

Surface topography characterization

The implant insertion torque (IT, Ncm) means ± standard deviation were 39.40 (±3.34), 20.00 (±2.54), 45.20 (±3.91) and 45.50 (±6.43) for Titamax Ex, Facility, Alvim, and Drive implants with NeoPoros® surface, respectively; and 42.00 (±2.11), 14.00 (±3.20), 49.70 (±5.21) and 51.70 (±5.17) for Titamax Ex, Facility, Alvim and Drive implants with Acqua™ surface, respectively.

The mean values and associated standard deviations are shown in Table 1, along with the relative reduction in the roughness

Discussion

Superhydrophilic characteristics of dental implant surfaces are linked to increased bone-biomaterial interaction [24,27,29,64] but should ideally also promote mechanical resistance against shear forces and long-term chemical stability [25] while minimizing harm to the tissues. Because preservation of the surface integrity of implants during insertion is a critical factor [[34], [35], [36]38] for successful osseointegration, the impact of physical-chemical modifications and hydrophilic

Conclusion

The results shown in this study provide evidence that the physicochemical surface treatment affects the integrity of the implant surface and the release of particles in the bone beds. Surface modifications to obtain superhydrophilic surfaces increase the surface roughness of implants, making them more susceptible to surface damage. Consequently, hydrophilic implants displayed higher relative roughness reductions than their hydrophobic counterparts and released more Ti particles into the bone

Acknowledgements

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001. The authors also thank Neodent, Curitiba, PR, Brazil for providing the dental implants and accessories used in the study; the Brazilian Nanotechnology National Laboratory (LNNano), Campinas, SP, Brazil; and the Nuclear Instrumentation Laboratory at CENA/USP, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil for the use of equipment and facilities.

References (92)

  • X. He et al.

    Analysis of titanium and other metals in human jawbones with dental implants - A case series study

    Dent Mater

    (2016)
  • T. Wachi et al.

    Release of titanium ions from an implant surface and their effect on cytokine production related to alveolar bone resorption

    Toxicology

    (2015)
  • H. Devlin et al.

    A comparison of maxillary and mandibular bone mineral densities

    J Prosthet Dent

    (1998)
  • I. Miyamoto et al.

    Influence of cortical bone thickness and implant length on implant stability at the time of surgery-clinical, prospective, biomechanical, and imaging study

    Bone

    (2005)
  • W.P. Dong et al.

    An integrated approach to the characterization of surface wear I: qualitative characterization

    Wear

    (1995)
  • W.P. Dong et al.

    Comprehensive study of parameters for characterizing three dimensional surface topography III: parameters for characterizing amplitude and some functional properties

    Wear

    (1994)
  • M. Franchi et al.

    Early detachment of titanium particles from various different surfaces of endosseous dental implants

    Biomaterials

    (2004)
  • C.N. Elias et al.

    Mechanical and clinical properties of titanium and titanium-based alloys (Ti G2, Ti G4 cold worked nanostructured and Ti G5) for biomedical applications

    J Mater Res Technol

    (2019)
  • Y. Okazaki et al.

    Corrosion resistance, mechanical properties, corrosion fatigue strength and cytocompatibility of new Ti alloys without Al and V

    Biomaterials

    (1998)
  • E. Velasco-Ortega et al.

    In vitro evaluation of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of a commercial titanium alloy for dental implantology

    Mutat Res

    (2010)
  • A. Dorogoy et al.

    Modeling dental implant insertion

    J Mech Behav Biomed Mater

    (2017)
  • A. Sajnóg et al.

    New procedure of quantitative mapping of Ti and Al released from dental implant and Mg, Ca, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn as physiological elements in oral mucosa by LA-ICP-MS

    Talanta

    (2017)
  • Titanium applications in dentistry

    J Am Dent Assoc

    (2003)
  • A. Wennerberg et al.

    Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review

    Clin Oral Implants Res

    (2009)
  • J.T. Steigenga et al.

    Dental implant design and its relationship to long-term implant success

    Implant Dent

    (2003)
  • T. Albrektsson et al.

    Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man

    Acta Orthop Scand

    (1981)
  • J. Derks et al.

    Peri-implant health and disease. A systematic review of current epidemiology

    J Clin Periodontol

    (2015)
  • C. Fransson et al.

    Prevalence of subjects with progressive bone loss at implants

    Clin Oral Implants Res

    (2005)
  • R.A. Jaffin et al.

    The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis

    J Periodontol

    (1991)
  • O. Geckili et al.

    Evaluation of possible prognostic factors for the success, survival, and failure of dental implants

    Implant Dent

    (2014)
  • J. Gottlow et al.

    An experimental comparison of two different clinically used implant designs and surfaces

    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res

    (2012)
  • J.V. Ríos-Santos et al.

    Unravelling the effect of macro and microscopic design of dental implants on osseointegration: a randomised clinical study in minipigs

    J Mater Sci Mater Med

    (2018)
  • R.M. Díaz-Sánchez et al.

    Improvement in the initial implant stability quotient through use of a modified surgical technique

    J Oral Implantol

    (2017)
  • J.Y. Martin et al.

    Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63)

    J Biomed Mater Res

    (1995)
  • T. Albrektsson et al.

    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)
  • A. Wennerberg et al.

    Bone tissue response to commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and coarse particles of aluminum oxide

    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

    (1996)
  • L. Vanden Bogaerde et al.

    A randomized case-series study comparing the stability of implant with two different surfaces placed in fresh extraction sockets and immediately loaded

    Int J Dent

    (2016)
  • F. Rupp et al.

    Enhancing surface free energy and hydrophilicity through chemical modification of microstructured titanium implant surfaces

    J Biomed Mater Res A

    (2006)
  • A. Wennerberg et al.

    On implant surfaces: a review of current knowledge and opinions

    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

    (2010)
  • T.T. Hägi et al.

    Mechanical insertion properties of calcium-phosphate implant coatings

    Clin Oral Implants Res

    (2010)
  • D.M. Brunette et al.

    Titanium in medicine: material science, surface science, engineering, biological responses and medical applications

    (2001)
  • D. Buser et al.

    Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface

    J Dent Res

    (2004)
  • S.C. Sartoretto et al.

    Early osseointegration driven by the surface chemistry and wettability of dental implants

    J Appl Oral Sci

    (2015)
  • S.C. Sartoretto et al.

    Accelerated healing period with hydrophilic implant placed in sheep tibia

    Braz Dent J

    (2017)
  • M.M. Novellino et al.

    Resonance frequency analysis of dental implants placed at the posterior maxilla varying the surface treatment only: a randomized clinical trial

    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res

    (2017)
  • Cited by (10)

    • Innovative surfaces and alloys for dental implants: What about biointerface-safety concerns?

      2021, Dental Materials
      Citation Excerpt :

      Because of these limitations, some reports have proposed methodologies for simulating the implant insertion processes and in situ conditions of an implant in clinical function [109–111], as well as collections of peri-implant fluids for atomic analysis of the region [16]. From these methodologies, it was demonstrated that after installation of implants with modified surfaces, the release of particles and the superficial deformation happened steadily, revealing the impregnation of metallic particles in the model mimicking the bone tissue [110]. In addition, the particles found in these simulation models showed physical–chemical characteristics like those already found in patients' peri-implant tissues [111].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text