Pedro Mesquita1, Pedro de Sousa Gomes2, Paula Sampaio3, Gintaras Juodzbalys4, Américo Afonso1, Maria Helena Fernandes2. 1. Laboratório de Anatomia e Histologia Dentária, Faculdade de Medicina Dentária, Universidade do Porto Portugal. 2. Laboratório de Farmacologia e Biocompatibilidade Celular, Faculdade de Medicina Dentária, Universidade do Porto Portugal. 3. Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto Portugal. 4. Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas Lithuania.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare two commercially available screw-type sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) Ti implant systems from Eckermann Laboratorium S.L., with similar geometry and distinct microtopography, regarding surface properties and osteoblastic cytocompatibility. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Implant I (referred as a conventional SLA system) and Implant II (a system patented as Eckcyte(®)) were characterized for macro and microtopograpphy, surface roughness and chemical composition. For the cytocompatibility studies, human bone marrow osteoblastic cells were seeded over the implants' surface, and the cell response was assessed for cell adhesion and proliferation, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity and matrix mineralization. RESULTS: Implant I presented a rough surface with irregularly shaped and sized cavities among flatter-appearing areas, whereas Implant II exhibited a homogeneous rough microporous surface. Compared to Implant I, Implant II presented higher Ra values (0.8 [SD 0.008] μm and 1.21 [SD 0.15] μm, respectively, P < 0.05) and also increased values of Rz, Rt and Rsm, a more negative value of Rsk, and similar RKu values. XPS showed the expected presence of Ti, O, C and N; Al, Si, F, P and Ca were detected in low concentrations. Implant II exhibited significantly lower Al levels. Both implants supported the adhesion, proliferation and differentiation of osteoblastic cells. Implant II showed a thicker fibrilar cell layer and an earlier onset and more abundant matrix mineralization. CONCLUSIONS: The homogeneous rough and microporous surface of Implant II is most probably a main contributor for its improved cell response.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare two commercially available screw-type sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) Ti implant systems from Eckermann Laboratorium S.L., with similar geometry and distinct microtopography, regarding surface properties and osteoblastic cytocompatibility. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Implant I (referred as a conventional SLA system) and Implant II (a system patented as Eckcyte(®)) were characterized for macro and microtopograpphy, surface roughness and chemical composition. For the cytocompatibility studies, humanbone marrow osteoblastic cells were seeded over the implants' surface, and the cell response was assessed for cell adhesion and proliferation, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity and matrix mineralization. RESULTS: Implant I presented a rough surface with irregularly shaped and sized cavities among flatter-appearing areas, whereas Implant II exhibited a homogeneous rough microporous surface. Compared to Implant I, Implant II presented higher Ra values (0.8 [SD 0.008] μm and 1.21 [SD 0.15] μm, respectively, P < 0.05) and also increased values of Rz, Rt and Rsm, a more negative value of Rsk, and similar RKu values. XPS showed the expected presence of Ti, O, C and N; Al, Si, F, P and Ca were detected in low concentrations. Implant II exhibited significantly lower Al levels. Both implants supported the adhesion, proliferation and differentiation of osteoblastic cells. Implant II showed a thicker fibrilar cell layer and an earlier onset and more abundant matrix mineralization. CONCLUSIONS: The homogeneous rough and microporous surface of Implant II is most probably a main contributor for its improved cell response.
Titanium (Ti) screw-shaped dental implants are biocompatible, have high
corrosion resistance, are lightweight and durable, and can be easily
prepared in many different shapes and textures without affecting their
biocompatibility [1,2].Ti surface topography is an essential feature in implant design, but the
optimal surface texture remains to be established [3,4], due to the
difficulty in correlating surface properties with clinical results
[5,6]. In addition to the wide range of possibilities in creating
complex topographies, other factors in implant design, namely geometry,
i.e. distance between peaks, curvature of the valleys and relative
distribution of flat and smooth regions, are also relevant for the short
and long-term clinical outcome [1]. Also, other aspects not related with
topography, material itself or fabrication process may significantly
affect the clinical performance. Each patient exhibits a specific answer
to a particular implant depending on bone characteristics, patient's
health status and surgical technique [6,7]. However, studies performed
on animals and representative cell culture systems continually provide
important information concerning the relevance of surface properties and
biological performance of the implants [8-10].In this context, a wide variety of studies have shown that early
fixation and long-term stability is improved by a high roughness
profile, compared to a smooth surface, due to the mechanical
interlocking between the implant surface and bone ingrowth [11]. It was
reported that surface roughness in the range of 1 - 10 μm maximizes the
bone/implant interlocking [3,12]. However, a high roughness appears to be associated with the risk of increased peri-implantitis and ionic
leakage [13]. Albrektsson and Wennerberg have shown that a moderate
roughness of 1 - 2 μm may limit this process and improve implant
performance [2].
Figure 3
Three-dimensional-optical profilometric profiles of the threaded
regions of Implants I and II. Evidence of a more homogeneous
rough surface was noticed for Implant II.
Microtopographic features were also found to play a decisive role on the
biological response to dental implants [14-16]. Discontinuities or
curvatures associated with microtopographic features seem to induce
local changes in the surface free energy, thus modifying the amount and
type of adsorbed proteins that can modulate the local cellular response
[16]. In vitro studies revealed that topographic properties were
found to affect several cellular events, including cell attachment,
alignment, direction of proliferation, growth rate and metabolism, and
thus influence the osseointegration process [14,15,17].
A theoretical approach suggested that the ideal surface should be
covered with hemisphericalpits approximately 1.5 μm in depth and 4 μm
in diameter [18].Eckermann Labon class="Chemical">ratorium S.L. (n class="Chemical">Alicante, Spain) developed two implant
systems with different surfaces. One system is referred by the
manufacturer as a conventional SLA surface. The other system, which was
launched later and patented as Eckcyte®, is claimed to
present improved surface properties. It is important to examine those
surface characteristics and osteoblastic cytocompatibility of these two
implant systems, in order to relate and compare the two parameters.
The aim of this study is to compare two commercin class="Chemical">ally available
screw-type sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) Ti implant systems from
Eckermann Labon class="Chemical">ratorium S.L., with similar geometry and distinct
microtopography, regarding surface properties and osteoblastic
cytocompatibility.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Ti ImplantsThe implants tested in this study were two commercially screw-type
sandblasted and acid- etched Ti implant systems manufactured by
Eckermann Laboratorium S.L. (Alicante, Spain). The implants were
sandblasted with alumina (Al2O3) particles,
followed by an acid etching treatment involving HCl, H2SO4
and HF solutions, and differ on the experimental conditions of the
blasting and the etching protocols, however, details of the
manufacturing process were not available. The implants will be referred
as Implant I (the implant mentioned as a conventional SLA system) and
Implant II (the system patented as Eckcyte®). Implants I and
II were 3.0 mm in diameter and 8 and 13 mm in length, respectively. The
implants were removed from their sterile package just before surface and
cytocompatibility studies.The surface of the threaded parts of Implants I and II was assessed for
macro and microtopogn class="Chemical">raphy, surface roughness and chemicn class="Chemical">al composition.
Macro and microtopogn class="Chemical">raphy
Morphology and texture were assessed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
with a JEOL JSM 6301F scanning electron microscope equipped with an
X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) microanalysis capability
(Voyager XRMA System, Noran Instruments). Implants were fixed to an
aluminium sample holder on a conducting carbon surface. Observation was
performed at 15 kV, and magnification varied from x30 to x2000.Surface roughness and opticn class="Chemical">al profilometry
Roughness measurements were performed with a T8000 Hommel profiler (Hommel
AG, Hamburg, D). The measured length was 1.00 mm, cut-off was 0.08 mm,
the radius tip was 5 mm, and the filter used was M1 (according to ISO
11562). The measurements were performed in randomly selected regions; in
each region, three measurements were done. The implants were assessed
for Ra, Rt, Rz, Rsm, Rku and Rsk.The three-dimenn class="Chemical">sionn class="Chemical">al-surface roughness was assessed with an optical
profiler coupled to a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM, Leica
SP2 AOBS SE, Leica Microsystems, Germany). The images were taken on the
peak and on the valley of the thread, and were worked out with a
specific software (Leica Microsystems Heidelberg GmbH, 2.61 Build 1538
LCS Lite, Leica Microsystems, Germany).
The chemical composition was analysed by X-ray photoelectron
spectroscopy (XPS, ESCALAB 200A, VG Scientific, UK) by using an Al source operated at 15 KV and 300W and a pressure lower than 10-6 Pa. The area of the surface analysed was approximately 10 mm2.
This analysis allows for the identification of residual contamination
and for the semi-quantification of the composition of the external
layers of the surface. The following peaks were considered: C 1s, O 1s,
Ti 2p, Al 2p, N 1s, Si 2p, F 1s, P 2p, Ca 2p and Pb 4f.A qun class="Chemical">alitative assessmenpan>t of the chemicn class="Chemical">al composition of the implants'
surface was also performed by EDS (Voyager XRMA System, Noran
Instruments, Madison, WI, USA) coupled to a JEOL JSM 6301F scanning
electron microscope.
n class="Species">Human bone marrow cell cultures
Cytocompatibility studies were performed with human bone marrow
osteoblastic cell cultures. Bone marrow was obtained from orthopaedic
surgery procedures, after Local Ethical Committee approval and patient
informed consent. Bone marrow was cultured in α-Minimal Essential Medium
(α-MEM) containing 10% foetalbovine serum, 50 μg/ml ascorbic acid, 100
IU/ml penicillin, 2.5 μg/ml streptomycin and 2.5 μg/ml fungizone, at 37
ºC in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2 in air.Primary cultures were maintained until near confluence (10 - 15 days)
and, at this stage, adherent cells were enzymaticn class="Chemical">ally released (trypn class="Chemical">sin-EDTA
solution). Second-passage cells were seeded (5 x 104 cell/cm2)
over the surface of the implants. Seeded implants were cultured for 30
days in the presence of 50 µg/ml ascorbic acid, 10 mM β-glycerophosphate
and 10 nM dexamethasone.
Colonized implants were evn class="Chemical">aluated for cell adhen class="Chemical">sion, pattern of cell
growth, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity and matrix mineralization.
n class="Gene">Alkaline phosphatase activity (pan> class="Gene">ALP)
The colonized materials were treated with 0.1% triton in water (to lyse
the cell layer) and the cell lysates were evaluated for ALP activity, at
days 7, 14, 21, 24 and 28. ALP was assayed by the hydrolysis of p-nitrophenyl
phosphate in alkaline buffer solution, pH 10.3, 30 min at 37 ºC, and
colorimetric determination of the product (p-nitrophenol) at λ = 405 nm,
in an ELISA plate reader (Synergy HT, Biotek, Vermont, USA). Enzyme
activity was normalized to total protein content, at the same
time-points.
The total amount of protein was assayed by the Lowry's method with
bovine serum albumin used as a standard.
ALP activity is expressed as nanomoles of p-nitrophenol produced per min
per μg of protein (nmol.min-1/μg protein).Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observationSEM was performed at 3 and 24 h and 28 days. Seeded implants were fixed
(1.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.14 M sodium cacodylate buffer, pH 7.3, 10 min), dehydrated in
graded alcohols, critical-point dried, sputter-coated with gold and
analysed in a JEOL JSM 6301F scanning electron microscope equipped with
a X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) microanalysis capability
(Voyager XRMA System, Noran Instruments, Madison, WI, USA).Concentn class="Chemical">ration of n class="Disease">ionized calcium in the culture medium
Culture medium from the cultured implants was collected every 2 - 3 days
(and cultures were refed with fresh medium). Analysis of ionizedcalcium
(Cai) content in the culture medium was conducted using Sigma
Diagnostics Kit (Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, St. Louis, MO, USA)
procedure number 587. Results were expressed as millimoles of Cai
per litre of medium (mmol/l).Statisticn class="Chemical">al ann class="Chemical">alysis
Results regarding surface characterization and cytocompatibility studies
were obtained from three independent experiments. In each experiment,
and for each time-point, 6 implants were characterized. In the
cytocompatibility studies, the three experiments were performed with
cell cultures established from different donors. Quantitative data are
presented as mean (SD). Groups of data were evaluated using one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni procedure for post-hoc
comparison using SPSS (Apache software foundation, version 15.0). Values
of P ≤ 0.05 were considered significant.
RESULTS
Surface chan class="Chemical">racterizationImplant I and Implant II contained 6 and 11 threads, respectively, and a
similar spacing and peak-valley distance (Figure 1A, B). At low
magnification SEM images, both implants showed a relatively homogeneous
appearance (Figure 1A - D). At high magnification (Figure 1E - H),
Implant I presented a rough surface with irregularly shaped and sized
cavities among flatter-appearing areas of various sizes. Implant II
showed a regular rough surface with a relatively homogeneous topography,
displaying abundant and randomly distributed rounded pits with an
average diameter of 1 - 4 μm.
Figure 1
SEM images of the geometry (A, B) and surface topography at low
(C, D) and high (E - H) magnification of the threaded regions of
Implants I and II. Implants presented a similar geometry, but a
distinct microtopography. Implant I presented an irregularly
rough morphology with different sized cavities and flat areas
and Implant II exhibited a relatively homogeneous microporous
surface.
SEM images of the geometry (A, B) and surface topography at low
(C, D) and high (E - H) magnification of the threaded regions of
Implants I and II. Implants presented a similar geometry, but a
distinct microtopography. Implant I presented an irregularly
rough morphology with different sized cavities and flat areas
and Implant II exhibited a relatively homogeneous microporous
surface.The roughness profiles of the implants (Figure 2A) showed that Implant
II exhibited higher amplitude of peak to valley distances, compared to
Implant I. Regarding the roughness parameters (Figure 2B), Implant II
presented Ra values higher than Implant I (1.21 [SD 0.15] μm and 0.8 [SD
0.08] μm, respectively.) Also, increased values of Rz, Rt and Rsm were
found on Implant II. Rsk was more negative on Implant II, but the two
implants showed similar RKu values.
Figure 2
Roughness profiles (A) and parameters (B) of the threaded
regions of Implants I and II. Implant II showed higher amplitude
of peak to valley distances (A) and higher values of Ra, Rz, Rt,
Rsm and Rsk (B).
aSignificantly different from Implant I.
Roughness profiles (A) and pan class="Chemical">rameters (B) of the threaded
regions of Implants I and II. Implant II showed higher amplitude
of peak to vn class="Chemical">alley distances (A) and higher values of Ra, Rz, Rt,
Rsm and Rsk (B).
an class="Chemical">Significantly differenpan>t from Implant I.
Observation of the three-dimenn class="Chemical">sionn class="Chemical">al-topometric images of the implants'
surface (Figure 3) showed that Implant I displayed a higher variation in
the peak protuberances, compared to Implant II.
Three-dimenn class="Chemical">sionn class="Chemical">al-optical profilometric profiles of the threaded
regions of Implants I and II. Evidence of a more homogeneous
rough surface was noticed for Implant II.
Chemicn class="Chemical">al compon class="Chemical">sition
XPS representative spectra and results of the elemental atomic
percentage (Figure 4 and
Table 1, respectively) showed the presence of
Ti (Ti 2p doublet, at ~459 eV), O (O 1s peak, at ~531 eV), C (C 1s, at
~285 eV) and N in higher percentages; other elements were present in
significantly lower concentrations, i.e. Al, Si, F, P and Ca. Implants I
and II had similar percentages of Ti and O (Table 1). Regarding the
elements found in low percentages, the most evident difference between
the two implants was the significantly lower percentage of Al on the
surface of Implant II (Table 1). Pb was not detected. EDS spectra
provided similar information regarding the qualitative composition of
the implants (Figure 5).
Figure 4
XPS survey spectra of the threaded regions of Implants I and II
(A) and detailed spectra of Ti, O and C elements. The Ti 2p
doublet and the O 1s peak reflected the TiO2 layer,
and the C 1s peak indicates an organic contamination.
Table 1
Semi-quantitative XPS analysis of the Ti implants (at %)
C 1s
O 1s
Ti 2p
Al 2p
N 1s
Si 2p
F 1s
P 2p
Ca 2p
Implant I
45.13 (3.47)
35.74 (2.21)
8.28 (0.72)
5.13 (0.72)
3.14 (0.29)
1.36 (0.15)
0.55 (0.08)
0.50 (0.07)
0.17 (0.03)
Implant II
60.66 (7.40)a
26.79 (4.93)
8.06 (1.86)
1.02 (0.56)a
1.79 (0.22)a
0.75 (0.15)a
0.21 (0.06)a
0.18 (0.02)a
0.56 (0.16)a
aSignificantly different from Implant I (P ≤ 0.05).
M (SD) = mean (standard deviation).
Figure 5
EDS spectra of the threaded regions of Implants I and II, with
the typical Ti peaks. Compared to Implant I, Implant II did not
show the Al peak.
XPS survey spectn class="Chemical">ra of the threaded regions of Implants I and II
(A) and detailed spectn class="Chemical">ra of Ti, O and C elements. The Ti 2p
doublet and the O 1s peak reflected the TiO2 layer,
and the C 1s peak indicates an organic contamination.
EDS spectn class="Chemical">ra of the threaded regions of Implants I and II, with
the typicn class="Chemical">al Ti peaks. Compared to Implant I, Implant II did not
show the Al peak.
Semi-quantitative XPS ann class="Chemical">alyn class="Chemical">sis of the Ti implants (at %)
an class="Chemical">Significantly differenpan>t from Implant I (P ≤ 0.05).
M (SD) = mean (standard deviation).Osteoblastic cytocompatibilityHuman osteoblastic bone marrow cells were cultured over the surface of
the implants, and the colonized implants were characterized for
proliferation and differentiation events (Figures 6 - 8). In both
implants, low magnification SEM images (Figure 6A, B) showed adhered
cells 3h after plating, whereas at high magnification (Figure 6C, D),
cells exhibited a round central shape with long cytoplasmic extensions
and were able to adapt to the underlying irregular surface topography.
At day 28, SEM images showed that the implants' surface was completely
covered by a cell layer (Figure 6E, F). However, a thicker cell layer
was seen over Implant II; in addition, the cell layer exhibited a more
complex organization with a fibrilar matrix, compared with that observed
over Implant I, which showed mostly a continuous cell layer (Figure 6G,
H).
Figure 6
SEM images of Implants I and II colonized with human bone marrow
osteoblastic cells. A – D = cell adhesion 3h after cell plating. E – H =
appearance of the colonized implants at day 28. Cell adhesion:
3h after plating, cells are seen as darker points on the implant
surface at low magnification (A, B); at a high magnification (C,
D), cells showed a central area and cytoplasmic extensions which
adapted to the underlying rough surface. At day 28, the implants
surface was completely covered by a cell layer as seen in low
magnification images (E, F), and Implant II showed a thicker
cell layer; at a higher magnification, Implant I showed a
continuous cell layer, whereas Implant II exhibited a fibrilar
cell layer reflecting a more complex organization.
SEM images of Implants I and II colonized with human bone marrow
osteoblastic cells. A – D = cell adhesion 3h after cell plating. E – H =
appearance of the colonized implants at day 28. Cell adhesion:
3h after plating, cells are seen as darker points on the implant
surface at low magnification (A, B); at a high magnification (C,
D), cells showed a central area and cytoplasmic extensions which
adapted to the underlying rough surface. At day 28, the implants
surface was completely covered by a cell layer as seen in low
magnification images (E, F), and Implant II showed a thicker
cell layer; at a higher magnification, Implant I showed a
continuous cell layer, whereas Implant II exhibited a fibrilar
cell layer reflecting a more complex organization.The time-dependent ALP activity, normalized to the total protein content
(Figure 7), showed an increase with culture time in both colonized
implants. ALP activity was higher over Implant II, attaining a
statistically significant difference at day 21; in addition, maximum
values were observed earlier, at day 21, compared to colonized Implant I
(maximal values, at day 28).
Figure 7
ALP activity, expressed as nmol/min/mg protein, of human bone
marrow osteoblastic cells grown over Implants I and II for 28
days. ALP activity increased throughout the culture time, and
colonized Implant II exhibited earlier maximal values, compared
to colonized Implant I.
aSignificantly different from Implant I.
n class="Gene">ALP activity, expressed as nmol/min/mg protein, of n class="Species">human bone
marrow osteoblastic cells grown over Implants I and II for 28
days. ALP activity increased throughout the culture time, and
colonized Implant II exhibited earlier maximal values, compared
to colonized Implant I.
an class="Chemical">Significantly differenpan>t from Implant I.
SEM images of 28-day colonized implants showed the presence of
mineralized globular deposits in close association with the cell layer
in both implants, but the cell layer growing over Implant II exhibited a
more complex fibrilar structure and a higher abundance of the globular
structures (Figure 8A, B).
Figure 8C shows a representative high
magnification image of the mineralized deposits integrated in the fibrilar matrix, and
Figure 8D displays the X-ray spectrum of the
globular deposits, showing the presence of Ca and P peaks.
Figure 8
Matrix mineralization of human bone marrow osteoblastic cell
cultures grown over Implants I and II for 28 days. High
magnification SEM images: A, B and C = formation of globular
mineralized structures closely associated with the cell layer. D
= representative X-ray spectra of the mineralized deposits,
showing the presence of Ca and P peaks. E = levels of ionized
calcium (Cai) in the culture medium throughout the
30-day culture time, showing the consumption of Cai
from the medium due to the formation of calcium containing
deposits in the cell layer.
aSignificantly different from Implant I.
n class="Chemical">Cai levels in the culture medium (Figure 8E) were relatively
constant unpan>til approximately day 21 (Implant I) and day 16 (Implant II),
decrean class="Chemical">sing significantly afterwards.
Matrix mineralization of humanbone marrow osteoblastic cell
cultures grown over Implants I and II for 28 days. High
magnification SEM images: A, B and C = formation of globular
mineralized structures closely associated with the cell layer. D
= representative X-ray spectra of the mineralized deposits,
showing the presence of Ca and P peaks. E = levels of ionizedcalcium (Cai) in the culture medium throughout the
30-day culture time, showing the consumption of Cai
from the medium due to the formation of calcium containing
deposits in the cell layer.an class="Chemical">Significantly differenpan>t from Implant I.
DISCUSSION
It is well established that surface topography of Ti implants is of
particular interest for the osseointegration process, especially within
the areas confined by single threads that are representative of the
implants microtopography. This study compares two sandblasted and
acid-etched implant systems, from
Eckermann Laboratorium S.L. (Alicante, Spain).
According to the manufacturer, the system patented as Eckcyte®
(Implant II) has improved surface properties compared to the Implant
system I, launched previously.Implants I and II presented a similar geometry, namely thread spacing,
distance peak-valley and valley shape. However, they exhibited a distinct microtopography, which was produced by sandblasting with Al2O3
followed by an etching process involving HCl, H2SO4
and HF solutions, differing on the experimental protocols. In the
acid-etched process, factors such as acid concentration, relative
proportions of the acids used, temperature and time of exposure are
variables that are worked out to create different topographies [3]. A
variety of studies reported that specific acid-etching protocols produce microporous on Ti surfaces with sizes ranging from 0.5 to 4 μm in
diameter [3,8], which appear similar to that seen on the surface of Implant II. This type of microporous surface has been shown to greatly
improve osseointegration [3,19]. Regarding the different surface
features of Implants I and II, a previous work performed in our
laboratory, in titanium surfaces submitted to different acid-etching
protocols, showed that etching treatments based mostly on H2SO4
solutions provided a surface with a topography similar to that seen on
Implant I, and treatments with HF based solutions were very effective in
smoothing irregular rough titanium surfaces creating an homogeneous
rough topography [20]. Ti is very reactive to fluoride ions, forming
soluble TiF4 species, and it is reported that this type of
treatment creates a microrough topography and, also, fluoride
incorporation, that appears to enhance osteoblastic differentiation [21]
and osseointegration in in vivo experimental studies [22].
However, these considerations are merely speculative in which concerns
the conditions used to produce the topography of Implants I and II,
because such details were not disclosed by the manufacturer.The surface of the tested implants differs also on amplitude, spacing
and hybrid roughness parameters, as expected from their different
topography. The average surface roughness (Ra) was higher on Implant II,
compared to Implant I. However, the Ra values of both systems are within
the range considered to yield improved implant performance [5]. It is
worth mentioning that Ra gives only a good overall description of height
variations (as it is the arithmetic average of the absolute deviations
from the mean line over a sampling length), and it is not sensitive to
small changes in the surface profile [23]. There are other parameters
that complement surface description [23]. Rz, the arithmetic average of
the five highest profile peaks and the five lowest profile valleys over
the entire measurement trace, was higher on Implant II. The same was
observed for Rt, the maximum peak to valley of the entire measurement
trace, and for Rsm, the arithmetic average spacing between the falling
flanks of the peaks on the mean line measured over the sampling length.
However, Implants I and II have similar Rku values, a parameter that
describes the probability density sharpness of the profile. On the other
hand, Rsk, defined as skewness, which measures the symmetry of the
deviation from a mean plan, was more negative on Implant II than on
Implant I, meaning that, comparatively, Implant II has more valleys than
peaks, which is in line with that observed on the high magnification SEM
images. Also, the three-dimensional topography images showed evidence of
a more homogeneous rough surface on Implant II.The chemical composition and changes on the surface of Ti implants
differ, depending on their bulk composition and surface treatments.
These are relevant issues as they affect the initial biological
behaviour following implantation, such as protein adsorption and cell
attachment, conditioning the subsequent proliferation and
differentiation of bone cells at the implant surface [3]. The present
results showed that Implants I and II presented some differences in the
chemical composition of the surface. XPS analysis revealed the presence
of Ti, but also O, C and N, as expected, as these elements are commonly
adsorbed on Ti surface [3]. The Ti 2p doublet and the O 1s peak
reflected of titanium oxide (TiO2) layer [3], and the C peak
indicates an
organic contamination (presence of a carbon overcoat on the implant)
that is normally associated
with
implant handling (during packaging, for example) [24].
Al 2p peak is due to alumina residual particles on the surface,
resulting from the blasting process with Al2O3.
Alumina is insoluble in acid and is hard to remove from the Ti surface.
These particles might be released into the surrounding tissues and cause
deleterious effects on the implant osseointegration [3]. Also, the
chemical heterogeneity of the implant surface may decrease the excellent
corrosion resistance of Ti in physiological environment [25]. Implant II
showed significantly lower levels of Al, suggesting differences on the
blasting and/or the acid-etching protocols. Regarding this, a previous
work reported that HF solutions were more effective than H2SO4
solutions in eliminating Al contamination arising from the blasting
process [20]. The implants presented also residual amounts of F,
resulting from the presence of HF in the acid-etching treatment. Si, P
and Ca were found in very low levels, reflecting an inorganic
contamination, normally associated with implant handling, as referred
above [24]. It should be noted that the
organic and inorganic pollution normally found on the implant surface is
typically inhomogeneous across the implant, and should not be mistaken
for controlled chemical or biochemical modifications [24].Implant osseointegration requires the recruitment of osteoprogenitor
cells and their proliferation and differentiation into functional
osteoblasts that are able to produce a mineralized extracellular matrix
at the interface. Bone cells can recognize and respond to substratum
structures both in vivo and in vitro [3], and, in the
present work, human bone marrow cells, cultured in experimental
conditions that favour osteoblastic differentiation [26,27], were seeded
over Implants I and II, and the colonized implants were evaluated for
the elicited cell response. Results showed that both implants allowed
the initial cell adhesion and spreading and the subsequent cell
proliferation, as assessed by SEM observation at an early (3h) and a
later (28 days) culture time. In addition, ALP activity increased
significantly during the culture time, suggesting an osteoblastic
differentiation pathway [26]. ALP has a determinant role in the onset of
the matrix mineralization, by providing phosphate ions from the
hydrolysis of organic phosphates (in vitro, from the added β-glycerophosphate)
that, together with calcium ions (in vitro, present in the
culture medium), are used in the formation of the cell mediated calciumphosphate mineralized matrix. Accordingly, 28-day colonized implants
showed the presence of calcium phosphate deposits, closely associated
with the cell layer, as observed by SEM and coupled EDS. Concentration
of Cai in the culture medium was determined throughout the
culture time, in order to get information on the time-dependent profile
of the mineralization process. The measured Cai levels
reflected changes occurring between every medium change, so that the
values were not cumulative. The decreased Cai
levels observed at later culture times reflected the consumption
of Cai from the culture medium, that is being used in the
formation of calcium phosphate deposits in the collagenous matrix.
Matrix mineralization is the last event of the osteoblast
differentiation, and the observed behaviour is representative of the
in vivo osteoblast phenotype [26]. This cell response is expected,
as it is in agreement with the known biocompatibility of Ti [3], and
also considering that the surface roughness of both implants is within
the range reported to provide a good biological performance [2].
Compared to Implant I, Implant II showed a thicker fibrilar cell layer,
an earlier peak of ALP activity and onset of matrix mineralization (as
evident by the time-profile of the Cai consumption) and a
more abundant mineralized matrix. The better performance of Implant II
is related to its surface properties, and surface microtopography
certainly plays an essential role in this behaviour. Homogeneous rough
microporous surfaces are reported to promote the adhesion of fibrin
improving the osteoconductivity and providing contact guidance for the
osteogenic cells migrating along the implant surface, compared to
irregularly rough surfaces [3,28]. Also, this type of surface topography appears to provide a higher bone-to-implant contact, as described in in vivo studies [9,10]. Some differences were also observed on the
surface chemical composition, and this might also affect biological
response [5]. It is worthwhile to note that, as referred above, Implant
II contains a significantly lower percentage of Al, which is a positive
feature, considering the deleterious effects of this element on cell
behaviour [3].The main limitation of this study is the lack of information in
commercial or scientific literature on the details of the manufacturing
process of the two implant systems, which is not surprising as it is a
trade secret of the manufacturer. Thus, it is not possible to correlate
specific surface properties with the observed osteoblastic cell
response. Nevertheless, the homogeneous rough surface microtopography of
Implant II fills many of the features reported to contribute to an
improved bone cell response and better clinical outcome, as referred
above.
CONCLUSIONS
Implants I and II presented a similar geometry, but a distinct
microtopography, and also some differences in the surface roughness
parameters and chemical composition. However, the homogeneous rough and
microporous surface of Implant II is most probably a main factor for its
improved oteoblastic performance, reflected by the presence of a thicker
fibrilar cell layer and an earlier and more abundant matrix
mineralization. The lower Al content of Implant II also deserves to be
noted, due to the known cytotoxicity of this element. The earlier
osteoblastic differentiation that appears to occur on Implant II might
be a relevant factor during the first stages of bone apposition, which
in turn may speed up and enhance the osseointegration process
anticipating a better clinical outcome.
Authors: Arthur B Novaes; Vula Papalexiou; Márcio F M Grisi; Sérgio S L S Souza; Mário Taba; João K Kajiwara Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Galen B Schneider; Rebecca Zaharias; Denise Seabold; John Keller; Clark Stanford Journal: J Biomed Mater Res A Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 4.396