Scientific Literature

Abstract

 

Background and objectives: Dental implants are commonly used in dental therapeutics, but dental practitioners only have limited information about the characteristics of the implant materials they take the responsibility to place in their patients. The objective of this work is to describe the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 implant surfaces available on the market and establish their respective Identification (ID) Card, following the Implant Surface Identification Standard (ISIS). In this fifth part, coated surfaces and some collar surfaces were investigated.

 

Materials and Methods: Sixteen different implant surfaces were characterized: NanoTite (Biomet 3I, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA), SLActive (ITI Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), Roxolid SLActive (ITI Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), Xpeed (MegaGen Co., Seoul, Korea), Xpeed Plus (MegaGen Co., Seoul, Korea), Inicell (Thommen, Waldenburg, Switzerland), Integra-CP/NanoTite (Bicon, Boston, MA, USA), Dentis Haptite (Dentis, Daegu, Korea), Legacy 2 HA (Implant Direct LLC, Calabasas, CA, USA), Biohorizons HA (Biohorizons, Birmingham, AL, USA), Osstem HA (Osstem implant Co., Busan, Korea), DIO BioTite-H (DIO Co., Busan, Korea), Laser-Lok collar (Biohorizons, Birmingham, AL, USA), SBM collar (Implant Direct, Calabasas, CA, USA), Ossean collar (Intra-Lock, Boca Raton, Florida, USA), Kohno DES ZirTi (Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, Italy). Three samples of each implant were analyzed. Superficial chemical composition was analyzed using XPS/ESCA (X-RayPhotoelectron Spectroscopy/Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis) and the 100nm in-depth profile was established using Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES). The microtopography was quantified using optical profilometry (OP). The general morphology and the nanotopography were evaluated using a Field Emission-Scanning Electron Microscope (FE-SEM). Finally, the characterization code of each surface was established using the ISIS, and the main characteristics of each surface were summarized in a reader- friendly ID card.

 

Results: From a chemical standpoint, in the 16 different surfaces of this group, 5 were based on a commercially pure titanium (grade 4), 4 on a titanium-aluminium alloy (grade 5 or 23), 1 on a titanium-zirconium alloy, 3 on hydroxyapatite, 1 on brushite and 2 on a calcium phosphate core. 13 surfaces presented different forms of chemical impregnation or discontinuous coating of the core material. 15 surfaces presented different degrees of inorganic pollutions, and 1 presented also some organic pollution overcoat. Only 1 surface presented no pollution (Ossean collar). From a morphological standpoint, 1 surface was micropatterned (laser patterning) and 15 microrough, with different microtopographical aspects and values. 8 surfaces were smooth on the nanoscale, and therefore presented no significant and repetitive nanostructures. Eight surfaces were nanomodified: 2 implants were nanorough (Haptite and Ossean collar) and 6 were covered with nanoparticles (CaP, NaCl or Ca nanocrystals deposition: NanoTite, SLActive and Xpeed). Hydroxyapatite and brushite coated surfaces were heterogeneous and covered with extended cracks all over the surface. Only 6 surfaces were homogeneous and 10 were heterogeneous. Only one surface (Ossean collar) was fractal.

 

Discussion and Conclusion: The ISIS systematic approach allowed to gather the main characteristics of these commercially available products in a clear and accurate ID card. Coated surfaces had very specific morphological characteristics depending on the type of coating (nanocrystals heterogeneous deposition, or heterogeneous maximal microroughness with extended cracks for example). All these surfaces presented different designs, and pollutions were often detected. Users should be aware of these specificities if they decide to use these products. The development of new surfaces for the implant cervical area is also an important clinical paradigm users should be aware about. Finally, the diversity of the surfaces analyzed in this study illustrated that the ISIS system could be an interesting basis for the development of a clear and simple ISO standard for dental implant surfaces and other implantable devices.

 

Keywords: Dental implant, nanostructure, osseointegration, surface properties, titanium.

Identification card and codification of the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 dental implant surfaces. Part 5: chemically coated surfaces (Group 3, coating) and implant collar surfaces (Group 4, collar).

 

 

POSEIDO. 2014;2(1):81- 104.

Implant

Surface: 6

Sales and Technical Service: +1 877-330-0338

Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST  |  UNITED STATES

6560 West Rogers Circle, Suite 24 • Boca Raton, FL 33487

©2017 Intra-Lock International   |   Made in the USA