Introduction to dental implants materials, coatings, and surface modifications

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Muhammad Sohail Zafar ◽  
Shariq Najeeb ◽  
Zohaib Khurshid
2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralf Smeets ◽  
Bernd Stadlinger ◽  
Frank Schwarz ◽  
Benedicta Beck-Broichsitter ◽  
Ole Jung ◽  
...  

Objective.The aim of this paper is to review different surface modifications of dental implants and their effect on osseointegration. Common marketed as well as experimental surface modifications are discussed.Discussion.The major challenge for contemporary dental implantologists is to provide oral rehabilitation to patients with healthy bone conditions asking for rapid loading protocols or to patients with quantitatively or qualitatively compromised bone. These charging conditions require advances in implant surface design. The elucidation of bone healing physiology has driven investigators to engineer implant surfaces that closely mimic natural bone characteristics. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of surface modifications that beneficially alter the topography, hydrophilicity, and outer coating of dental implants in order to enhance osseointegration in healthy as well as in compromised bone. In the first part, this paper discusses dental implants that have been successfully used for a number of years focusing on sandblasting, acid-etching, and hydrophilic surface textures. Hereafter, new techniques like Discrete Crystalline Deposition, laser ablation, and surface coatings with proteins, drugs, or growth factors are presented.Conclusion.Major advancements have been made in developing novel surfaces of dental implants. These innovations set the stage for rehabilitating patients with high success and predictable survival rates even in challenging conditions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (17) ◽  
pp. 1246-1250
Author(s):  
Shamaa Anjum ◽  
Arvina Rajasekar

The use of dental implants for the replacement of missing teeth has increased in the last 30 years. The success rates for implant placement depend on a series of both biological and clinical steps which starts with primary stability that is being provided by the amount, quality and the distribution of bone within the proposed implant site. The most important factor in implant osseointegration is surface roughness, which shows increased osteoblast activity at 1 to 100 μm of the surface roughness when compared to a smooth surface. Rough surfaces have excellent osseointegration than smooth surfaces, but the results of research have been diverse, and it is evident that multiple treatments provide good results. The surfaces of a dental implant have been modified in several ways to improve its biocompatibility and speed up osseointegration. Literature says that any surface modification provides a good surface for osseointegration of the implant when the surface roughness is about 0.44 ~ 8.68 μm. It is also said that acid etching and coating are the most preferred methods for creating good roughness of the implant surface. From animal studies, it is known that implant surface modifications provided by biomolecular coating seemed to enhance the osseointegration by promoting peri-implant bone formation in the early stages of healing. It also seemed to improve histomorphometric analysis and biomechanical testing results. This article reviews the surface modifications of dental implants for the achievement of better success rates. Various methods are used to modify the topography or the chemistry of the implant surfaces which includes acid etching, anodic oxidation, blasting, treatment with fluoride, and calcium phosphate coating. These modifications provide a faster and a stronger osseointegration.1 Recently, hydrophilic properties added to the roughened surfaces or some osteogenic peptides coated on the surfaces shows higher biocompatibility and have induced faster osseointegration compared to the existing modified surfaces. With development in surface engineering techniques, new information on the properties, behaviour, and the reaction of various materials could be discovered which in turn allows the discovery of new materials, modification techniques and design of bio implants for the future. KEY WORDS Dental Implants, Surface Modifications, Biocompatibility, Surface Topography


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (28) ◽  
pp. 2104-2107
Author(s):  
Gayathri Karan Rajpurohit ◽  
Arvina Rajasekar

BACKGROUND The development of endosseous osseointegrated dental implants has been very rapid over the past 20 years. The present literature review focuses on evaluating the various modifications done on the surface of dental implant and its influence on microorganisms. We wanted to review the evidence on the surface texture of implants and its influence on microorganisms. METHODS A Medline research was done, and all the information was gathered from various research articles. The keywords on the search pad were “implant”, “surface texture”, “surface modifications “, “biofilm”, “bacterial attachment”, “adhesion”, “microbes”, “antibacterial”, “acid etching”, “subtractive” and “additive” changes. The research publications were searched on Google Scholar and PubMed. Screening of studies which were eligible for the review, quality assessment, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria and data extraction for all the endosseous implants with various surface modifications were checked. Verification of the information was conducted by two reviewers independently to eliminate any bias. The review article included systemic analysis, retrospective study and randomised trials. The results were all initially tabulated comparing the surface modifications with their effect on implant including bacterial resistance, osteogenic, osteoconductive etc. Based on the evidence the results were formulated, and the conclusion was made. RESULTS It’s clear from the evidence that there was no constancy in the results obtained. Each study believes in different techniques and different ideologies of the researcher to improve the microbial resistance either by coating or by surface modification. Due to the varying pattern of results, it is difficult to identify a definite reason for the microbial load over the implant. CONCLUSIONS There was no constancy in the results obtained. Overall, there are many technical solutions to avoid implant failure due to the bacterial load. These technical solutions exhibit a great potential when tried on preclinical models but there is a lack of clinical trial which hinders the achievement of any proper conclusion to build a standard protocol for the manufacturing of dental implants with structural modification. As implants are considered to be the most effective way to replace a missing tooth, standard technique with better surface texture is required to have good strength and better microbial resistance. KEY WORDS Surface Texture, Implant, Biofilm, Microbial Load, Modifications, Antimicrobial, Osseoconductive, Osseointegration


Author(s):  
Omkar Shetty ◽  
Radhika B Parekh ◽  
Rubina Tabassum

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu Sun ◽  
Guang Hong

Zirconia-based bioceramic is a potential material for dental implants developed and introduced in dentistry 30 years ago. However, some limitations still exist for zirconia implants caused by several factors, such as manufacturing difficulties, low-temperature degradation (LTD), long-term stability, and clinical experience. Several studies validated that some subtle changes on the zirconia surface might significantly impact its mechanical properties and osseointegration. Thus, attention was paid to the effect of surface modification of zirconia implants. This review generally summarizes the surface modifications of zirconia implants to date classified as physical treatment, chemical treatment, and surface coating, aiming to give an overall perspective based on the current situation. In conclusion, surface modification is an effective and essential method for zirconia implant application. However, before clinical use, we need more knowledge about these modification methods.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document