Search

There are numerous variables governing the formation of new bone around a dental implant. Of those variables, the implant surface is an important factor influencing the quality of osseointergration. Numerous techniques and materials have been used to alter the surface of an implant to enhance osseointergration and improve the survival and success rate. One such modification is utilizing graphene to modify the surface of an implant. This paper summarizes data collected form articles published in online databases in the past 10 years about the various means of modifying the implant surfaces and provides an in-depth review of the impact of graphene incorporation in dental implants.The document comprised of different sections and emphasized on the use of graphene as an implant surface coating material. The role of graphene on flexural strength, hardness and corrosion resistance have been discussed under mechanical properties whereas the potential of this combination on the osteogenesis, osseointergration and soft tissue seal is covered under biological properties. Lastly, how this combination acts as a drug delivery carrier and renders antimicrobial property has been addressed under pharmacological properties.This review has highlighted the various applications of graphene in the field of implant dentistry. It has outlined the various implant surface modifying methods and thrown light on the various affect this combination has on the mechanical, biological and pharmacological properties. Considering the various research done on the material, it can be concluded that graphene does have a bright future in implant dentistry and continued research in this area will provide fruitful benefits.

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of nanoparticles (NPs) of a plant extract on implant osseointegration in vivo. NPs of the Cissus quadrangularis (CQ) extract were synthesized. Twenty Wistar rats were included in the study. The test group (n = 5) had NPs-incorporated, the control group (n = 5) had no incorporation of NPs, and the sham group (n = 5) did not have implants placed. The toxicity profile of NPs was carried out by biochemical analysis before and after the implant placement. The rate of integration was assessed using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), Digital X-ray, histology, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at intervals of 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Statistical significance between the groups was determined by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) (p