The Surface Conditions and Composition of Titanium Alloys in Implantology: A Comparative Study of Dental Implants of Different Brands

Abstract

The success of titanium dental implants depends on their osseointegration into the bone, which is determined by the composition and surface properties of the implant in close contact with the bone. There is a wide variety of implants on the market. Is it possible to identify the implant with the best composition and surface topography for optimal osseointegration? To this aim, 13 brands of dental implants from nine distinct manufacturers have been selected and their composition and surface topography determined. The obtained results show differences between these implants, in this case, the Ssk averages of the three measurements performed on each implant were positive, or 0.4 (0.1–0.8), indicating that the roughness of all implants analyzed was primarily textured and not flat. Like Sa, we found the highest Sdr for implants subjected only to sandblasting. In addition, only the ALS-active® implant had a modified microstructure on its surface. However, analysis of the NANOTITE implant surface revealed a 1.40% presence of calcium which we consider too low to have an effect on bone formation around the implant. As a result, we have also highlighted the lack of a recognized independent standard for dental implant surface conditions and the lack of independent quality control vis-à-vis manufacturers. Of all the surface types studied, none proved more satisfactory than another.

Functionalization of a chemically treated Ti6Al4V-ELI alloy with nisin for antibacterial purposes

“…The increase in surface roughness characterizing the CT samples, registered both by the profilometer and confocal microscope (Sa values, Table 1), can be attributed to the microand nanostructuring induced by etching, confirming the successful surface treatment [6]. The CT surface has a lower roughness than the average of commercial implants, but it has been proven that it is beneficial for the biological response and a lower roughness is preferred in terms of high fatigue resistance and low biofilm formation [6,42].…”

Evaluation of Two Dental Implant Systems After at Least One-Year of Loading: A Clinical Follow-Up: Case Control Research

“…2 Rough implant surfaces were reported to have a significant increase in bone-to-implant anchorage, and improving osseointegration may be achieved by applying physical or chemical procedures to increase the roughness of the implant surface. [3][4][5] Physical methods for roughening include machining, cutting, titanium plasma spraying, blasting, and polishing. 6 Acid roughening for modifying the chemical structure of titanium, particularly the surface layer, plasma spray coating, blasting, hydroxyapatite coating, roughening by anodization, and similar techniques of chemical methods for roughening are also used.…”

“…6 Acid roughening for modifying the chemical structure of titanium, particularly the surface layer, plasma spray coating, blasting, hydroxyapatite coating, roughening by anodization, and similar techniques of chemical methods for roughening are also used. [3][4][5] Furthermore, some implant surfaces use acidification with blasting as a surface treatment. 3 Reliable measurements are required to determine the success of osseointegration and both invasive and noninvasive techniques have been developed.…”

“…[3][4][5] Furthermore, some implant surfaces use acidification with blasting as a surface treatment. 3 Reliable measurements are required to determine the success of osseointegration and both invasive and noninvasive techniques have been developed. 7 Invasive techniques include histological analysis and reverse torque tests, whereas noninvasive techniques include radiographic evaluations, cutting resistance, percussion tests, and implant mobility tests.…”

“…In TiUnite ® (Nobel: Nobel Bio-Care AG, Gothenburg, Sweden) implants, surface roughness is increased through the apical, which is approximately 1.2 μ, which helps with immediate loading and primer stability. [3][4][5] In this study, the aim was to examine and compare the clinical success of these two dental implant systems using RFA, radiographic parameters, and peri-implant measurements.…”