The Effect of Surface Roughness Difference on Bone Integration of Anodic Oxidized Ti Alloy Implants

Abstract:

At present, immediate loading of dental implants is of great interest. The key of this issue is how quickly implant can acquire firm fixation in the jaw bone, and how quickly the superstructure can be fabricated. In order to achieve these, it is necessary a large surface area of the implant and to promote early contact of the surrounding bone which can bear the load. In addition to this, anodic oxidization was carried out to prevent ion elution from titanium and titanium alloy in the body. The experiment was conducted with cylindrical Ti alloy test pieces of 4 different surface roughnesses (Ra=1.1μm, 1.2μm, 2.7μm, 4,7μm). These test pieces were treated by sandblasting and anodization, and implanted into the diaphysis of the femur of New Zealand white rabbits. Six weeks later, shear loading tests and histological examination were carried out. Strong interfacial bonding strength and active new bone formation were confirmed in the peripheral area of the test pieces having a surface roughness of Ra=2.7μm and 4,7μm. Judging from the stable fixation against the shear loading in the bone tissue seen in group C(Ra=2.7μm), it was

• Periodical: Advances in Science and Technology (Volume 49)
• Pages: 212-221
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AST.49.212
• Online since: October 2006
• Authors: Akiyoshi Yamagami, Yuji Ehara, Shogo Kanda, Takahisa Fukazawa, Yusuke Yoshihara, Fumihiko Suwa
• Keywords: Anodic Oxidation, Dental Implant, Implant Surfaces, TiAl

References

[1] H. Kawahara, A. Yamagami, K. Nakagawa, S. Komatsu. Bioceram Porous Implant. Ishiyaku-Shuppan Japan (1989), 2: pp.2-42.

[2] K. Ozaki, M. Toda, H. Takeuchi. et al. A single alumina screw type dental implant (Bioceram), Statistical investigation of 23-year-long clinical cases. J Jpn Soc Oral Implantol (1999), 12: pp.146-147.

[3] A. Yamagami, H. Kawahara. Shingle crystal porous alumina (sapphire) for dental implant. In: Wise D (ed). Encyclopedic Handbook of Biomaterials and Bioengineering. Vol 2: Applications. New York: Marcel Dekker (1995), pp.1617-1637.

[4] A. Yamagami, S. Kotera, H. Kawahara. Studies on a porous alumina dental implant reinforced with single-crystal alumina: Animal experiments and human clinical applications, Quantitative characterization and performance of porous implant for hard tissue applications, ASTM STP 953(J.E. (ed. ) Lemon,: American society for testing and materials). Philadelphia (1987).

DOI: 10.1520/stp25250s

[5] A. Yamagami, S. Kotera, Y. Ehara, Y. Nishio. Porous alumina for free-standing implants. Part 1: Implant design and in vivo animal studies. J Prosthet Dent (1988), 59: pp.689-695.

DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(88)90384-8

[6] R. Adell, U. Lekholm, B. Rockler. Branemalk P-1. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg (1981), 10: pp.387-416.

DOI: 10.1016/s0300-9785(81)80077-4

[7] J. Roos, L. Sennerby, U. Lekholm, T. Jemt, K. Grondahl, T. Albrektsson. A qualitative and quantitative method for evaluating implant success: A 5-year retrospective analysis of the Branemark implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants (1997).

[8] T. Albrektsson, P. Strand, W. Becker, et al. Histologic studies of failed dental implants: A retrieval analysis of 4 different oral implant designs. Clin Mater (1992), 10: pp.225-232.

DOI: 10.1016/0267-6605(92)90015-l

[9] F. Grizon, E. Aguado, G. Hure, MF. Basle, D. Chappard. Enhanced bone integration of implants with increased surface roughness: A long-term study in the sheep. J Dent (2002), 30: pp.195-203.

DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(02)00018-0

[10] AB Jr. Novaes, SL. Souza, PT. de Oliveira, AM. Sonza. Histomorphometric analysis of the bone-implant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatments placed side by side in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants (2002).

DOI: 10.1097/00008505-200211040-00051

[11] L. Carlsson, T. Rostlund, B. Albrektsson, T. Albreksson. Removal torques for polished and rough titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants (1988), 3: pp.21-24.

[12] KA. Thomas, SD. Cook. An evaluation of variables influencing implant fixation by direct bone apposition. J Biomed Mater Res (1985), 19: pp.875-901.

DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820190802

[13] D. Buser, RK. Schenk, S. Steinemann, JP. Fiorellini, CH. Fox, H. Stich. Infuluence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res (1991), 25: pp.889-902.

DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820250708

[14] S. Kanagaraja, A. Wennerberg, C. Eriksson, H. Nygren. Cellular reactions and bone apposition to titanium surfaces with different surface roughness and oxide thickness cleaned by oxidation. Biomaterials (2001), 22: pp.1809-1818.

DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(00)00362-8

[15] DD. D'Lima, SM. Lemperle, PC. Chen, RE. Holmes, CW Jr. Colwell. Bone response to implant surface morphology. J Arthroplasty (1998), 13: pp.928-934.

DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(98)90201-7