Thallita Pereira Queiroz1, Rafael Scaf de Molon2, Francisley Ávila Souza3, Rogério Margonar4, Anahi Herrera Aparecida Thomazini5, Antônio Carlos Guastaldi5, Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira6. 1. Department of Health Sciences, Implantology Post Graduation Course, Dental School, University Center of Araraquara (UNIARA), Avenida Jose Bonifacio, 128, Araraquara, SP, 14801-150, Brazil. thaqueiroz@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Diagnosis and Surgery, School of Dentistry at Araraquara, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Rua Humaitá 1680, Araraquara, SP, 14801-903, Brazil. molon.foar@yahoo.com.br. 3. Department of Surgery, School of Dentistry at Araçatuba, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, SP, Brazil. 4. Department of Health Sciences, Implantology Post Graduation Course, Dental School, University Center of Araraquara (UNIARA), Avenida Jose Bonifacio, 128, Araraquara, SP, 14801-150, Brazil. 5. Biomaterials Group, Physical-Chemistry Department, Chemistry Institute of Araraquara, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Araraquara, SP, Brazil. 6. Department of Diagnosis and Surgery, School of Dentistry at Araraquara, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Rua Humaitá 1680, Araraquara, SP, 14801-903, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the surfaces of commercially pure titanium implants (cp Ti) with modified surfaces by laser beam (LS) with and without hydroxyapatite (HA) deposition, without (HAB) and with (HABT) thermal treatment. Furthermore, we have compared them with implants with surfaces modified by acid treatment (AS) and with machined surfaces (MS) utilizing histomorphometric and descriptive histologic analyses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Surface topography characterization was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDX), and surface roughness (Ra) before implant installation. Forty-five rabbits received seventy-five implants in their left and right tibias and were randomly divided into five groups (n = 5 implants per group): (1) cp Ti implant modified by LS, (2) cp Ti implant modified by laser beam associated with HA deposition without heat treatment (HAB), (3) cp Ti implant modified by laser beam associated with HA deposition with heat treatment (HABT), (4) cp Ti implant with modified surface by means of acid treatment (Master Porous) commercially available (AS), and (5) cp Ti implant with MS commercially available. After 30, 60, and 90 days, the animals were euthanized and the implants and surrounding bone were removed and prepared by a non-decalcified histological process. The percentage of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and the bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO) between the first three threads was evaluated to the higher cortical region. RESULTS: BIC (%) was statistically superior (p < 0.001) on the LS (69.36 ± 7.91, 71.67 ± 8.79, and 79.69 ± 3.3), HAB (73.22 ± 3.75, 69.48 ± 1.89, and 75.7 ± 4.62), and HABT (65.41 ± 5.51, 71.3 ± 2.5, and 79.68 ± 5.01) compared with AS (49.15 ± 5.76, 41.94 ± 2.85, and 57.18 ± 7.81) and MS (36.69 ± 7.24, 52.52 ± 2.75, and 51.31 ± 6.96) in the 30, 60, and 90-day periods, respectively. BAFO (%) of HAB at 30 days (90.17 ± 6.24) was statistically superior (p < 0.01) to all the other groups. At 60 and 90 days, BAFO of LS (87.17 ± 5.9 and 87.99 ± 2.52), HAB (85.95 ± 3.93 and 82.17 ± 3.65), and HABT (83.27 ± 1.44 and 88.67 ± 2.67) was higher than the AS (77.49 ± 5.83 and 76.42 ± 5.98) and MS (74.01 ± 4.68 and 73.81 ± 4.91). CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, our data indicate that the modified surfaces LS, HAB, and HABT favored the interaction between bone and implant and increased bone formation. In addition, HAB showed higher biological behavior favoring the osseointegration. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our study provides evidence that LS, HAB, and HABT-modified surfaces improved bone-to-implant contact and increased bone formation around osseointegrated implants compared to conventional machined implants favoring the osseointegration process.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the surfaces of commercially pure titanium implants (cp Ti) with modified surfaces by laser beam (LS) with and without hydroxyapatite (HA) deposition, without (HAB) and with (HABT) thermal treatment. Furthermore, we have compared them with implants with surfaces modified by acid treatment (AS) and with machined surfaces (MS) utilizing histomorphometric and descriptive histologic analyses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Surface topography characterization was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDX), and surface roughness (Ra) before implant installation. Forty-five rabbits received seventy-five implants in their left and right tibias and were randomly divided into five groups (n = 5 implants per group): (1) cp Ti implant modified by LS, (2) cp Ti implant modified by laser beam associated with HA deposition without heat treatment (HAB), (3) cp Ti implant modified by laser beam associated with HA deposition with heat treatment (HABT), (4) cp Ti implant with modified surface by means of acid treatment (Master Porous) commercially available (AS), and (5) cp Ti implant with MS commercially available. After 30, 60, and 90 days, the animals were euthanized and the implants and surrounding bone were removed and prepared by a non-decalcified histological process. The percentage of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and the bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO) between the first three threads was evaluated to the higher cortical region. RESULTS: BIC (%) was statistically superior (p < 0.001) on the LS (69.36 ± 7.91, 71.67 ± 8.79, and 79.69 ± 3.3), HAB (73.22 ± 3.75, 69.48 ± 1.89, and 75.7 ± 4.62), and HABT (65.41 ± 5.51, 71.3 ± 2.5, and 79.68 ± 5.01) compared with AS (49.15 ± 5.76, 41.94 ± 2.85, and 57.18 ± 7.81) and MS (36.69 ± 7.24, 52.52 ± 2.75, and 51.31 ± 6.96) in the 30, 60, and 90-day periods, respectively. BAFO (%) of HAB at 30 days (90.17 ± 6.24) was statistically superior (p < 0.01) to all the other groups. At 60 and 90 days, BAFO of LS (87.17 ± 5.9 and 87.99 ± 2.52), HAB (85.95 ± 3.93 and 82.17 ± 3.65), and HABT (83.27 ± 1.44 and 88.67 ± 2.67) was higher than the AS (77.49 ± 5.83 and 76.42 ± 5.98) and MS (74.01 ± 4.68 and 73.81 ± 4.91). CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, our data indicate that the modified surfaces LS, HAB, and HABT favored the interaction between bone and implant and increased bone formation. In addition, HAB showed higher biological behavior favoring the osseointegration. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our study provides evidence that LS, HAB, and HABT-modified surfaces improved bone-to-implant contact and increased bone formation around osseointegrated implants compared to conventional machined implants favoring the osseointegration process.
Authors: Francisley A Souza; Thallita P Queiroz; Antônio C Guastaldi; Idelmo R Garcia-Júnior; Osvaldo Magro-Filho; Renato S Nishioka; Karin E Sisti; Celso K Sonoda Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 3.368
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: Barbora Voltrova; Vojtech Hybasek; Veronika Blahnova; Josef Sepitka; Vera Lukasova; Karolina Vocetkova; Vera Sovkova; Roman Matejka; Jaroslav Fojt; Ludek Joska; Matej Daniel; Eva Filova Journal: RSC Adv Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 4.036