Chemical and Morphologic Analysis of Titanium Dental Implants: X-ray Photoemission Techniques (XPS) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) with EDX Analysis

Abstract

Nowadays the implants rehabilitations are used deeply by clinicians. The importance to technological improvement is working to find the best surface of the fixture to obtain a good and stable osteointegration. By the use of the Energy Dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis and the X-ray Photoemission Spectroscopy (XPS) evaluate the surface quality of commercial implants. The XPS analysis was made to evaluate the chemical elements that compose the material surface of the implant and determine the state of atomical connections. The EDX analysis was performed to evaluate the characteristic qualitative and quantitative of the metallic alloys of the fixtures to determinate the pureness of the metals under the surfaces. The major difference found between the samples is the amount of surface aluminum (in oxidized state, alumina), which in the samples 2 appears to be more than an order of magnitude greater (12 times). In Sample 2 there are traces of P, Na and Cl not present in Sample 1. The presence of C, O, N, Si and Ca are similar on both samples (1 and 2). Now, in the market there are many different dental implants. All the producers are working hard on micro and macro design of the fixtures, but not so many attentions is spent on the type of the alloy composing the implant. From this analysis, it is observed that different Type 4 dental implant are not so similar by composition. Moreover, the pure Titanium is well tolerated by biological tissues, on the other hand is not well known if the presence of other materials can influence the biological reaction. The samples of the fixture analyzed present different composition of the alloy, although both classified as Type 5 Titanium. Further studies on this topic are needed to understand if these differences of alloy composition can influence the clinical outcome.

Considering the Value of 3D Cultures for Enhancing the Understanding of Adhesion, Proliferation, and Osteogenesis on Titanium Dental Implants

“…Aluminum oxide and corundum (the naturally occurring mineral form of Al 2 O 3 ) are deposited during the sandblasting process and seem to have differential effects according to their concentrations. In fact, it was pointed out that high concentrations of residual Al reduce mineralization and osseointegration, while lower concentrations [43,44] have positive effects on cell viability [36] and may be advantageous for bone formation and mineralization [45] and stem cell differentiation [44]. Fluorine surface treatment has been found to clearly affect actin filaments and cell morphology [38,46] and influence cell differentiation, but not proliferation [38,[47][48][49].…”

Contamination of titanium dental implants: a narrative review

“…Saline [28] Sodium hypochlorite [26] Sodium hydroxide [33] Improve osteoconduction and osteointegration [33] Enhance early stage of cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation [34] Cause precipitation of many minerals, higher wear resistance of the implant surface [28,[33][34][35] Aluminium Sand-blasting [37] Acid etching [37] Physiological fluids [15] Ti-Al coating [38] Enhance corrosion resistant [15] Improved osteoblast viability [22] Interfere osseointegration process [39] [15,22,[37][38][39]…”

“…Some Ti dental implants may contain surface contaminants that may cause a problem during the osseointegration process. A study done by Semez et al [38] showed that the amount of Al in a dental implant called MYIM-PLANT (Nobel Biocare, India) was 12-fold higher than that found in Ti alloys typically used for dental implants (between 0 and about 0.06) [38]. Furthermore, another study suggested that a high concentration of residual aluminium oxide (AlO 2 ) may interfere negatively with the osseointegration process [39].…”

Surface Functionalisation of Dental Implants with a Composite Coating of Alendronate and Hydrolysed Collagen: DFT and EIS Studies

“…The surface chemistry and properties are key factors of the implant’s long life since the surface of the implant is in direct contact with surrounding bones of the oral cavity [ 1 ]. Therefore, many commercially available implants made of metals, alloys, and ceramics have been intensively explored to evaluate their surface properties [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. The results revealed the presence of inorganic and organic contaminants on many implants.…”