Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-01-11, 10:22:38 | version 1.38.0
Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 2 | Issue 4/2016 39 I m p l a n t s u r f a c e s a n d b l a s t e d w i t h t i t a n i u m d i o x i d e m i c r o p a r t i c l e s cumulate at the mineralization front and in the osteoid matrix itself.33 Therefore, other alterna- tive sandblasting methods were developed in order to roughen the implant surface, such as the use of resorbable particles based on calci- um34 and TiO2,35, 36 both of which are unproble- matic if small residues remain after surface tre- atment procedures. The effects of sandblasting the implant sur- face with titanium oxide as an alternative to aluminum oxide have been investigated previ- ously.19, 20, 27, 28, 37–40 The research protocols took into account biomechanical (removal torque), interfacial and histological analyses, as well as histomorphometric and microhardness measu- rements. Onlyone studyobserved and analyzed specimensusingbothscanningelectronmicros- copy (SEM) and histomorphometry, as well as the removal torque test, in dogs.37 This study demonstrated that implants blasted with TiO2 particles had a better anchorage than implants with a machine-produced surface, in spite of there being no difference in BIC.37 Animalmodelsareessentialinprovidingphe- nomenological information on biological reacti- ontoendosseousimplants.41 Theremovaltorque test is among the in vivo mechanical tests com- monly used to evaluate the strength of the in- teraction between the bone and implant surfa- ce.42–44 High resistance to implant removal encountered during these tests indicates good integration between the bone and implant sur- face, or in the case of porous materials, a high degree of bone ingrowth into the pores of the implant.44 The present study evaluated the extent of osseointegration and the character- istics ofthe bone around the surface within four weeks after implantation. Previous research has shown that surface characteristics influenced BIC, with statistically significant differences on different implant sur- faces.41 Histomorphometric and removaltorque measurementsaretworepresentativetestsused to assessthe nature ofthe implant–tissue inter- face.45 In this study, both surface biocompatibi- lityand osteoconductive propertieswere confir- med by the biomechanical tests. Such interaction was more pronounced forthe textu- red surface compared with the machined one, indicating a possible synergistic interaction of the mechanical interlock between the bone and implantsurfaceandhigherboneformationcom- pared with the machined surface. The reverse torque values may appear rather high even for implants with a machined surface. This has to do with the experimental model chosen. In fact, the cortical bone of rabbit tibia is very compact and may firmly interlock with the implants. Ho- wever, the aim of the present study was not to estimate parameter values that could be direc- tly transferred to patients, but to compare two different surfaces using both in vitro and in vivo approaches. The results confirm that TiO2-blas- ted surfaces allowforgreaterosteoconductivity and accelerated bone formation compared with machinedsurfacesandarethereforerecommen- ded for anticipated loading protocols. Conclusion Despite the limitations of this study, TiO2 blast- ing displayed a positive effect on osseointegra- tion and on the biomechanical features of the implants. The histological results confirmed the hypothesis that the SLA surface using blasting with TiO2 microparticles positively affects the osseointegration of titanium dental implants. Competing interests The authors declarethattheyhave no conflict of interests related to this study. References 1. Sullivan R. Implant dentistry and the concept of osseointegration: a historical perspective. → J Calif Dent Assoc. 2001 Nov;29(11):737–45. 2. Lemons JE, Venugopalan R, Lucas L. Corro- sion and biodegradation. → In: AF von Recum, editor. Handbook of biomaterials evaluation: scientific, technical and clinical testing of implant materials. New York: Taylor Francis; 1999. 3. Liu X, Chu PK, Ding C. Surface modification of titanium, titanium alloys, and related materials for biomedical applications. → Mater Sci Eng R Rep. 2004 Dec;47(3-4):49–121. 4. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Sep;20 Suppl 4:172–84. 5. Novaes AB Jr, Souza SL, Barros RR, Pereira KK, Iezzi G, Piattelli A. Influence of implant surfaces on osseointegration. → Braz Dent J. 2010;21(6):471–81. 6. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. On implant surfaces: a review of current knowledge and opinions. → Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Jan-Feb;25(1):63–74. 7. Sul YT, Johansson C, Wennerberg A, Cho LR, Chang BS, Albrektsson T. Optimum surface properties of oxidized implants for reinforcement of osseointegration: surface chemistry, oxide thickness, porosity, roughness, and crystal structure. → Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 May-Jun;20(3):349–59. Volume 2 | Issue 4/201639