Basic research methods and current trends of dental implant surfaces

Abstract

Among dental implant design alterations, surface modifications have been by far the most investigated topic. Regarding implant surface research, the lack of hierarchical approaches relating in vitro, in vivo, clinical trials, and ex vivo analyses has hindered biomaterials scientists with clear informed rationale guidelines for implant surface design. This manuscript provides a critical hierarchical overview of the in vitro, laboratory in vivo, clinical, and ex vivo methodologies used to investigate the performance of novel biomaterials aiming to allow dental professionals to better evaluate the past, present, and future dental implant surface research. This manuscript also contains an overview of the commercially available surface texture and chemistry modifications including novel nanotechnology-based fabrication processes. Over the last decade, surface texturing has been the most utilized parameter for increasing the host-to-implant response. Recently, dental implant surfaces utilizing reduced length scale physico/chemical features (atomic and nanometric) have shown the potential to synergistically use both texture and the inclusion of bioactive ceramic components on the surface. Although surface modifications have been shown to enhance osseointegration at early implantation times, information concerning its long-term benefit to peri-implant tissues is lacking due to the reduced number of controlled clinical trials. Given the various implants/surfaces under study, the clinician should ask, founded on the basic hierarchical approach described for the in vitro, laboratory in vivo data, as well as the results of clinical studies to effectiveness before use of any dental implant.

Microscopic view of osseointegration and functional mechanisms of implant surfaces

“…A microscopically rough surface on implant is more favored than a smooth surface as it increases bone anchorage and reinforces the biomechanical interlocking of bone with implant [19,20]. Numerous reports have demonstrated that implants with micron-scale topography enable rapid and increased bone accrual or bone implant contact [21][22][23][24][25][26][27].…”

The Impact of Different Acids Etch on Sandblasted Titanium Dental Implant Surfaces Topography

“…10,11 Therefore, investigations concerning detailed characteristics of implant surfaces have been encouraged to create a new generation of implants. The study was conducted to evaluate the effect etching with different types of acids on sandblasted titanium dental implant surface topography.…”

Reliability evaluation of alumina-blasted/acid-etched versus laser-sintered dental implants

“…Surface texturing is commonly employed as one of the final steps prior to cleaning, packaging, and sterilizing dental implants, and such procedures may have drawbacks such as increased final cost and potential implant contamination with blasting media and organic contaminants from surface processing which may jeopardize osseointegration [7]. Thus, alternative methods which allow surface texturing during the manufacturing process are desirable.…”

“…While the ISO 14801:2007 was created with the aim to standardize the testing procedures and data presentation in fatigue of dental implants, it has been shown that results produced by such method should be interpreted with caution. The wide range of testing parameters allowed in the ISO 14801:2007 regarding testing frequency (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15), environment (water or dry when testing above 15 Hz), and amount of cycles (2 or 5 million, depending on chosen frequency) have shown that a very different failure probability distribution may result [20] as well as failure modes (transgranular in dry compared to intergranular in wet conditions) [21]. In addition, testing of one sample could take 12 days when carried on 2 Hz.…”