Bone response to implant surface morphology

The surface roughness affects the bone response to dental implants. A primary aim of the roughness is to increase the bone-implant interface shear strength. Surface roughness is generally characterized by means of surface roughness parameters. It was demonstrated that the normally used parameters cannot discriminate between surfaces expected to give a high interface shear strength from surfaces expected to give a low interface shear strength. It was further demonstrated that the skewness parameter can do this discrimination. A problem with this parameter is that it is sensitive to isolated peaks and valleys. Another roughness parameter which on theoretical grounds can be supposed to give valuable information on the quality of a rough surface is kurtosis. This parameter is also sensitive to isolated peaks and valleys. An implant surface was assumed to have a fairly well-defined and homogenous “semiperiodic” surface roughness upon which isolated peaks were superimposed. In a computerized simulation, it was demonstrated that by using small sampling lengths during measurement, it should be possible to get accurate values of the skewness and kurtosis parameters.

Download Full-text

Alkali-Modified Titanium Surface Stimulating Formation of Bone-Implant Interface

Key Engineering Materials ◽

10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.361-363.749 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 361-363 ◽

pp. 749-752

Author(s):

J. Strnad ◽

Jan Macháček ◽

Z. Strnad ◽

C. Povýšil ◽

Marie Strnadová

Keyword(s):

Titanium Implant ◽

Surface Characteristics ◽

Healing Time ◽

Machined Surface ◽

Implant Surface ◽

Bone Implant ◽

Bone Response ◽

Modified Surface ◽

The Difference ◽

Titanium Implant Surface

This study was carried out to assess the bone response to alkali-modified titanium implant surface (Bio surface), using histomorphometric investigation on an animal model. The mean net contribution of the Bio surface to the increase in bone implant contact (BIC) with reference to the turned, machined surface was evaluated at 7.94 % (BIC/week), within the first five weeks of healing. The contribution was expressed as the difference in the osseointegration rates ( BIC/'healing time) between the implants with alkali modified surface (Bio surface) and those with turned, machined surface. The surface characteristics that differed between the implant surfaces, i.e. surface morphology, specific surface area, contact angle, hydroxylation/hydration, may represent factors that influence the rate of osseointegration.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of Peri-Implant Bone Response in Implants Retrieved for Fracture After More Than 20 Years of Loading: A Case Series

Journal of Oral Implantology ◽

10.1563/aaid-joi-d-13-00037 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 41 (4) ◽

pp. 414-418 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Carlo Mangano ◽

Adriano Piattelli ◽

Carmen Mortellaro ◽

Francesco Mangano ◽

Vittoria Perrotti ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Close Contact ◽

Case Series ◽

Compact Bone ◽

Implant Surface ◽

Bone Response ◽

Histological Data ◽

Maturation Stages ◽

Bone To Implant Contact ◽

The University

Analysis of human retrieved dental implants is a useful tool in the evaluation of implant success and failure. More human histological data are needed from samples of long-term implant service. The aim of the present case series was a histological and histomorphometrical evaluation of the peri-implant bone responses in implants retrieved for fracture after more than 20 years loading. The archives of the Implant Retrieval Center of the Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences of the University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy were searched. A total of 5 implants, retrieved after a loading period of more than 20 years, were found: 2 had been retrieved after 20 years, 1 after 22 years, 1 after 25 years, and 1 after 27 years. All these implants were histologically processed. Compact, mature bone in close contact with the implant surface was observed in all specimens, with no gaps or connective tissue at the interface. Bone in different maturation stages was found around some implants. Primarily newly formed bone was observed in proximity of the implant surface, while mature compact bone with many remodeling areas and cement lines were detected in areas distant from the implant. Many primary and secondary osteons were present. Bone to implant contact percentage varied from 37.2% to 76%. In conclusion, histology and histomorphometry showed that even after many years of function, all implants presented more than adequate bone to implant contact and they appeared to be very well integrated in the peri-implant bone.

Download Full-text

Peri-implant bone response to orthodontic loading: Part 2. Implant surface geometry and its effect on regional bone remodeling

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics ◽

10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.024 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 128 (2) ◽

pp. 182-189 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Rodrigo Oyonarte ◽

Robert M. Pilliar ◽

Douglas Deporter ◽

Donald G. Woodside

Keyword(s):

Bone Remodeling ◽

Surface Geometry ◽

Implant Surface ◽

Bone Response

Download Full-text

Implant Surface Finishing Influence on Tissue-Implant Anchoring

Solid State Phenomena ◽

10.4028/www.scientific.net/ssp.216.39 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 216 ◽

pp. 39-44

Author(s):

Florin Miculescu ◽

Lucian Toma Ciocan ◽

Marian Miculescu ◽

Daniela Meghea ◽

Marin Bane ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Surface Morphology ◽

Experimental Studies ◽

Tissue Response ◽

Surface Finishing ◽

Implant Surface ◽

Metal Implants ◽

Metallic Implants

The implant surface morphology and microstructure significantly affect cells and tissue quantity formed at the interface. Therefore, the biocompatibility of an implant is just one of many parameters that influence tissue response to metallic implants. In order to understand the importance of the surface morphology and microscopic structures, we must retain first the main problem that limit the application and operation of metal implants - the lack of implant viable anchoring within the tissue. On this basis, experimental studies were carried out on implants having different microstructures and macrostructures that have been used in order to achieve a better long-term anchoring and stability of the implant support.

Download Full-text

Implant Surface Roughness and Bone Healing: a Systematic Review

Journal of Dental Research ◽

10.1177/154405910608500603 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 85 (6) ◽

pp. 496-500 ◽

Cited By ~ 299

Author(s):

M.M. Shalabi ◽

A. Gortemaker ◽

M.A. Van’t Hof ◽

J.A. Jansen ◽

N.H.J. Creugers

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Surface Roughness ◽

Bone Healing ◽

Animal Studies ◽

Implant Fixation ◽

Implant Surface ◽

Bone Response ◽

Bone To Implant Contact ◽

Almost All ◽

Relationship Of

A systematic review was performed on studies investigating the effects of implant surface roughness on bone response and implant fixation. We searched the literature using MEDLINE from 1953 to 2003. Inclusion criteria were: (1) abstracts of animal studies investigating implant surface roughness and bone healing; (2) observations of three-month bone healing, surface topography measurements, and biomechanical tests; (3) provision of data on surface roughness, bone-to-implant contact, and biomechanical test values. The literature search revealed 5966 abstracts. There were 470, 23, and 14 articles included in the first, second, and third selection steps, respectively. Almost all papers showed an enhanced bone-to-implant contact with increasing surface roughness. Six comparisons were significantly positive for the relationship of bone-to-implant contact and surface roughness. Also, a significant relation was found between push-out strength and surface roughness. Unfortunately, the eventually selected studies were too heterogeneous for inference of data. Nevertheless, the statistical analysis on the available data provided supportive evidence for a positive relationship between bone-to-implant contact and surface roughness.

Download Full-text

Peri-implant bone response to orthodontic loading: Part 1. A histomorphometric study of the effects of implant surface design

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics ◽

10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.023 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 128 (2) ◽

pp. 173-181 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Rodrigo Oyonarte ◽

Robert M. Pilliar ◽

Douglas Deporter ◽

Donald G. Woodside

Keyword(s):

Implant Surface ◽

Surface Design ◽

Histomorphometric Study ◽

Bone Response

Download Full-text

In Vivo Bone Response to Biomechanical Loading at the Bone/Dental-Implant Interface

Advances in Dental Research ◽

10.1177/08959374990130012301 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 13 (1) ◽

pp. 99-119 ◽

Cited By ~ 256

Author(s):

John B. Brunski

Keyword(s):

Bone Healing ◽

Fibrous Tissue ◽

Bone Adaptation ◽

Implant Design ◽

Large Strains ◽

Implant Surface ◽

Cement Line ◽

Local Bone ◽

Bone Response

Since dental implants must withstand relatively large forces and moments in function, a better understanding of in vivo bone response to loading would aid implant design. The following topics are essential in this problem. (1) Theoretical models and experimental data are available for understanding implant loading as an aid to case planning. (2) At least for several months after surgery, bone healing in gaps between implant and bone as well as in pre-existing damaged bone will determine interface structure and properties. The ongoing healing creates a complicated environment. (3) Recent studies reveal that an interfacial cement line exists between the implant surface and bone for titanium and hydroxyapatite (HA). Since cement lines in normal bone have been identified as weak interfaces, a cement line at a bone-biomaterial interface may also be a weak point. Indeed, data on interfacial shear and tensile "bond" strengths are consistent with this idea. (4) Excessive interfacial micromotion early after implantation interferes with local bone healing and predisposes to a fibrous tissue interface instead of osseointegration. (5) Large strains can damage bone. For implants that have healed in situ for several months before being loaded, data support the hypothesis that interfacial overload occurs if the strains are excessive in interfacial bone. While bone "adaptation" to loading is a long-standing concept in bone physiology, researchers may sometimes be too willing to accept this paradigm as an exclusive explanation of in vivo tissue responses during experiments, while overlooking confounding variables, alternative (non-mechanical) explanations, and the possibility that different types of bone ( e.g., woven bone, Haversian bone, plexiform bone) may have different sensitivities to loading under healing vs. quiescent conditions.

Download Full-text