PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to compare surface properties of four commercial dental implants and to compare those implant systems' cell adhesion, which may be affected by the surface properties, and to provide scientific information on the selection of implants for clinicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The surface properties of four commonly used dental implants (3i Nanotite™, Astra OsseoSpeed™, Nobel Biocare TiUnite®, and Straumann SLActive®) were studied using MicroSpy profiler, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, and Raman microspectroscopy. Primary mouse alveolar bone cells were cultured on the surface of implants from the four companies. After 48-hour culture, SEM in combination with a quantitative analysis of SEM images was used to examine the cell adhesion. Cell adhesion rates (ratios of cell surface to implant surface) among different systems were compared. RESULTS: Distinct differences were found among these implants. Comparisons of roughness among three locations: flank, top, and valley within the same implant system, or in the same location among different implants were made. Generally Astra and Straumann systems showed the roughest surface, whereas 3i showed the smoothest surface. Multiple cracks were found on the surface of the Nobel Biocare system, which also had a dramatically lower level of titanium. In addition, rutile phase of titanium oxide was found in 3i, Astra, and Straumann systems, and anatase phase of titanium oxide was only detected in the Nobel Biocare system. After 48-hour culture, Astra and Straumann systems displayed the highest cell adhesion at the areas of flank, top, and valley of the implant surface. Primary cells also reached confluence on the valley, but significantly less in the 3i system. Nobel Biocare showed the least cell adhesion on the flank and valley. CONCLUSION: Implant systems have distinct differences in surface properties, leading to different cell adhesion results. Further in vivo study is needed to study the impact of the surface characteristics and different cell adhesion on the osseointegration between implant and bone.
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to compare surface properties of four commercial dental implants and to compare those implant systems' cell adhesion, which may be affected by the surface properties, and to provide scientific information on the selection of implants for clinicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The surface properties of four commonly used dental implants (3i Nanotite™, Astra OsseoSpeed™, Nobel Biocare TiUnite®, and Straumann SLActive®) were studied using MicroSpy profiler, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, and Raman microspectroscopy. Primary mouse alveolar bone cells were cultured on the surface of implants from the four companies. After 48-hour culture, SEM in combination with a quantitative analysis of SEM images was used to examine the cell adhesion. Cell adhesion rates (ratios of cell surface to implant surface) among different systems were compared. RESULTS: Distinct differences were found among these implants. Comparisons of roughness among three locations: flank, top, and valley within the same implant system, or in the same location among different implants were made. Generally Astra and Straumann systems showed the roughest surface, whereas 3i showed the smoothest surface. Multiple cracks were found on the surface of the Nobel Biocare system, which also had a dramatically lower level of titanium. In addition, rutile phase of titanium oxide was found in 3i, Astra, and Straumann systems, and anatase phase of titanium oxide was only detected in the Nobel Biocare system. After 48-hour culture, Astra and Straumann systems displayed the highest cell adhesion at the areas of flank, top, and valley of the implant surface. Primary cells also reached confluence on the valley, but significantly less in the 3i system. Nobel Biocare showed the least cell adhesion on the flank and valley. CONCLUSION: Implant systems have distinct differences in surface properties, leading to different cell adhesion results. Further in vivo study is needed to study the impact of the surface characteristics and different cell adhesion on the osseointegration between implant and bone.