OBJECTIVE: Implant surface properties have long been identified as an important factor to promote osseointegration. The importance of nanostructures and hydrophilicity has recently been discussed. The aim of this study was to investigate how nanostructures and wettability influence osseointegration and to identify whether the wettability, the nanostructure or both in combination play the key role in improved osseointegration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six adult rabbits each received two Ti grade 4 discs in each tibia. Four different types of surface modifications with different wettability and nanostructures were prepared: hydrophobic without nanostructures (SLA), with nanostructures (SLAnano); hydrophilic with two different nanostructure densities (low density: pmodSLA, high density: SLActive). All four groups were intended to have similar chemistry and microroughness. The surfaces were evaluated with contact angle measurements, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy and interferometry. After 4 and 8 weeks healing time, pull-out tests were performed. RESULTS: SLA and SLAnano were hydrophobic, whereas SLActive and pmodSLA were super-hydrophilic. No nanostructures were present on the SLA surface, but the three other surface modifications clearly showed the presence of nanostructures, although more sparsely distributed on pmodSLA. The hydrophobic samples showed higher carbon contamination levels compared with the hydrophilic samples. After 4 weeks healing time, SLActive implants showed the highest pull-out values, with significantly higher pull-out force than SLA and SLAnano. After 8 weeks, the SLActive implants had the highest pull-out force, significantly higher than SLAnano and SLA. CONCLUSIONS: The strongest bone response was achieved with a combination of wettability and the presence of nanostructures (SLActive).
OBJECTIVE: Implant surface properties have long been identified as an important factor to promote osseointegration. The importance of nanostructures and hydrophilicity has recently been discussed. The aim of this study was to investigate how nanostructures and wettability influence osseointegration and to identify whether the wettability, the nanostructure or both in combination play the key role in improved osseointegration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six adult rabbits each received two Ti grade 4 discs in each tibia. Four different types of surface modifications with different wettability and nanostructures were prepared: hydrophobic without nanostructures (SLA), with nanostructures (SLAnano); hydrophilic with two different nanostructure densities (low density: pmodSLA, high density: SLActive). All four groups were intended to have similar chemistry and microroughness. The surfaces were evaluated with contact angle measurements, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy and interferometry. After 4 and 8 weeks healing time, pull-out tests were performed. RESULTS:SLA and SLAnano were hydrophobic, whereas SLActive and pmodSLA were super-hydrophilic. No nanostructures were present on the SLA surface, but the three other surface modifications clearly showed the presence of nanostructures, although more sparsely distributed on pmodSLA. The hydrophobic samples showed higher carbon contamination levels compared with the hydrophilic samples. After 4 weeks healing time, SLActive implants showed the highest pull-out values, with significantly higher pull-out force than SLA and SLAnano. After 8 weeks, the SLActive implants had the highest pull-out force, significantly higher than SLAnano and SLA. CONCLUSIONS: The strongest bone response was achieved with a combination of wettability and the presence of nanostructures (SLActive).
Authors: Hong-Zhi Zhou; Ya-da Li; Lin Liu; Xiao-Dong Chen; Wei-Qiang Wang; Guo-Wu Ma; Yu-Cheng Su; Min Qi; Bin Shi Journal: J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci Date: 2017-02-22
Authors: Stefan Stübinger; Katja Nuss; Alexander Bürki; Isabel Mosch; Miché le Sidler; Steve T Meikle; Brigitte von Rechenberg; Matteo Santin Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: Rolando A Gittens; Lutz Scheideler; Frank Rupp; Sharon L Hyzy; Jürgen Geis-Gerstorfer; Zvi Schwartz; Barbara D Boyan Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2014-04-05 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Mahdis Shayan; Youngsoo Jung; Po-Shun Huang; Marzyeh Moradi; Anton Y Plakseychuk; Jung-Kun Lee; Ravi Shankar; Youngjae Chun Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2014-07-30 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: Ricardo Pereira Nogueira; Jose Deuzimar Uchoa; Fanny Hilario; Gabriela de Fátima Santana-Melo; Luana Marotta Reis de Vasconcellos; Fernanda Roberta Marciano; Virginie Roche; Alberto Moreira Jorge Junior; Anderson Oliveira Lobo Journal: Int J Nanomedicine Date: 2021-01-26
Authors: F Florian; F P S Guastaldi; M A Cominotte; L C Pires; A C Guastaldi; J A Cirelli Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 3.896