Search

Titanium and its alloys are commonly used for dental implants because of their good mechanical properties and biocompatibility. The surface properties of titanium implants are key factors for rapid and stable bone tissue integration. Micro-rough surfaces are commonly prepared by grit-blasting and acid-etching. However, proteins and cells interact with implant surfaces in the nanometer range. The aim of this study was to compare the osseointegration of machined (MA), standard alumina grit-blasted and acid-etched (MICRO) and nanostructured (NANO) implants in rabbit femurs. The MICRO surface exhibited typical random cavities with an average roughness of 1.5 μm, while the NANO surface consisted of a regular array of titanium oxide nanotubes 37±11 nm in diameter and 160 nm thick. The MA and NANO surfaces had a similar average roughness of 0.5 μm. The three groups of implants were inserted into the femoral condyles of New Zealand White rabbits. After 4 weeks, the pull-out test gave higher values for the NANO than for the other groups. Histology corroborated a direct apposition of bone tissue on to the NANO surface. Both the bone-to-implant contact and bone growth values were higher for the NANO than for the other implant surfaces. Overall, this study shows that the nanostructured surface improved the osseointegration of titanium implants and may be an alternative to conventional grit-blasted and acid-etched surface treatments., (Copyright © 2014 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The aim was to compare osteointegration of nanostructured implants to a microsurface widely used for titanium dental implants., Materials & Methods: Commercial titanium dental implants with smooth or microroughened surfaces were nanostructured. Implants were inserted into the femoral condyles of rabbits. After 2 and 4 weeks, histomorphometry calculation was performed., Results: Nanotubes measuring 60 nm in diameter were observed on both S-NANO (roughness: 0.05 μm) and R-NANO (roughness: 0.40 μm) surfaces. The MICRO surface exhibited typical random cavities (roughness: 2.09 μm). At 4 weeks, bone-to-implant contact values were significantly higher for the R-NANO than for the MICRO surface while no differences were observed at 2 weeks., Conclusion: Overall, this study shows that the nanostructured surfaces improved osteointegration similar or higher than the MICRO.