Background:
The biological response is directly related to the physicochemical properties of the dental implant surfaces. Both morphology and surface roughness may have influence on cell proliferation, differentiation and extracellular matrix synthesis, and on local factors of production including cell shape. The surfaces of the implants have undergone many changes in recent years. The topography of the implant surface is related to the degree of roughness and orientation of the surface irregularities. Many surface treatments have been used in dental implants in order to optimize surface properties, enhancing cell attachment to the implant and osseointegration. However, in order to draw conclusions about the bone response, more qualitative assessments are needed in terms of the surface topography and architecture in dental implants, correlating them with clinical and biological results.
Aim/Hypothesis:
It is believed that the surface modifications on the nanoscale affect both topography and the chemical properties of the surface. Although the clinical relevance of nanoscale structures is not yet widely recognized, it may be relevant for the process of osseointegration. It is of great interest to find out how the surface roughness of commercial implants appears at a nanometer level.This study aimed to analyze qualitatively the topography and architecture of different dental implant surfaces, comparing, describing them in the international standard developed by Wenneberg and Albrektsson (Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000) and correlating them with the possible molecular and cellular events of early osseointegration.
Material and Methods:
The implants were analyzed in three different areas: tops, valleys and flanks of the threads. Each implant surface was further analyzed in the apical and cervical regions. The five implants analyzed were: PI Brånemark Philosophy™(Exopro®), NanoTite® (Biomet 3i), SLA® (Straumann), TiUnite® (Nobel Biocare) and Xive® TG plus (Dentsply Friadent). The scanning electron microscope (Scanning Electron Microscope JSM-T220A, JEOL) employed in the qualitative assessment of the topography was used for detection of secondary electrons, operating at 10kV. The magnifications used to obtain the images were standardized at 35x, 1000x, 1500x and 2000x, totalling 18 images per sample. The atomic force microscope (Scanning Probe Microscope SPM-9600, Shimadzu) was operated in contact mode using a scanner with a maximum height of 15μm. Scanning dimensions: 3.0 x 3.0 μm2 and 15 x 15μm2 were used. The area analyzed was the top of the apical region of the implants due to its lower roughness, enabling data acquisition. Parameters were obtained such as arithmetic mean of the surface roughness (Ra), maximum height (Rz), the average ten-point roughness (Rzjis), the root mean square (Rq), the average height from a surface (Rp) and the mean depth from a surface (Rv). To evaluate the data in this study the patterns and topographic roughness of different specimens were evaluated in a comparative univariate analysis.
Results:
The NanoTite®, SLA® and Xive®TG plus implant surfaces in SEM are similar in their appearance of lacunae, differing in the surface plane; the TiUnite® implant surface features present coralliform/volcano formations while the Exopro® implant presents streaks in the form of small grooves. The average roughness (Ra) with AFM was higher in the TiUnite® implant, followed by Xive®TG plus, NanoTite®, Exopro® and SLA® implants. The study area is restricted to small points (nanoscale), which does not allow an overview of all structures (micrometer) for a real comparison of roughness. From the viewpoint of cellular accommodation on implant surface irregularities it seems logical that the suitable scale should be micrometric. The scale of surface treatment from the nanometric point of view may be suitable to the adaptation and interaction of the molecular level as mediators, adhesion molecules and cell membrane structures such as integrins, cadherins and many other nanoscale structures.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
The optimal methodology for analysis of surfaces with the aim of understanding how the cells adhere and colonize must be in the micrometric range, in particular SEM rather than AFM. The SEM and AFM methodologies are fundamental in surface analysis of dental implants, but must be jointly and/or simultaneously employed. AFM seems to be the most suitable for studies aimed at the interaction of the implant surface with molecular-level structure while SEM is more suitable at the cellular level.
Background:
The biological response is directly related to the physicochemical properties of the dental implant surfaces. Both morphology and surface roughness may have influence on cell proliferation, differentiation and extracellular matrix synthesis, and on local factors of production including cell shape. The surfaces of the implants have undergone many changes in recent years. The topography of the implant surface is related to the degree of roughness and orientation of the surface irregularities. Many surface treatments have been used in dental implants in order to optimize surface properties, enhancing cell attachment to the implant and osseointegration. However, in order to draw conclusions about the bone response, more qualitative assessments are needed in terms of the surface topography and architecture in dental implants, correlating them with clinical and biological results.
Aim/Hypothesis:
It is believed that the surface modifications on the nanoscale affect both topography and the chemical properties of the surface. Although the clinical relevance of nanoscale structures is not yet widely recognized, it may be relevant for the process of osseointegration. It is of great interest to find out how the surface roughness of commercial implants appears at a nanometer level.This study aimed to analyze qualitatively the topography and architecture of different dental implant surfaces, comparing, describing them in the international standard developed by Wenneberg and Albrektsson (Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000) and correlating them with the possible molecular and cellular events of early osseointegration.
Material and Methods:
The implants were analyzed in three different areas: tops, valleys and flanks of the threads. Each implant surface was further analyzed in the apical and cervical regions. The five implants analyzed were: PI Brånemark Philosophy™(Exopro®), NanoTite® (Biomet 3i), SLA® (Straumann), TiUnite® (Nobel Biocare) and Xive® TG plus (Dentsply Friadent). The scanning electron microscope (Scanning Electron Microscope JSM-T220A, JEOL) employed in the qualitative assessment of the topography was used for detection of secondary electrons, operating at 10kV. The magnifications used to obtain the images were standardized at 35x, 1000x, 1500x and 2000x, totalling 18 images per sample. The atomic force microscope (Scanning Probe Microscope SPM-9600, Shimadzu) was operated in contact mode using a scanner with a maximum height of 15μm. Scanning dimensions: 3.0 x 3.0 μm2 and 15 x 15μm2 were used. The area analyzed was the top of the apical region of the implants due to its lower roughness, enabling data acquisition. Parameters were obtained such as arithmetic mean of the surface roughness (Ra), maximum height (Rz), the average ten-point roughness (Rzjis), the root mean square (Rq), the average height from a surface (Rp) and the mean depth from a surface (Rv). To evaluate the data in this study the patterns and topographic roughness of different specimens were evaluated in a comparative univariate analysis.
Results:
The NanoTite®, SLA® and Xive®TG plus implant surfaces in SEM are similar in their appearance of lacunae, differing in the surface plane; the TiUnite® implant surface features present coralliform/volcano formations while the Exopro® implant presents streaks in the form of small grooves. The average roughness (Ra) with AFM was higher in the TiUnite® implant, followed by Xive®TG plus, NanoTite®, Exopro® and SLA® implants. The study area is restricted to small points (nanoscale), which does not allow an overview of all structures (micrometer) for a real comparison of roughness. From the viewpoint of cellular accommodation on implant surface irregularities it seems logical that the suitable scale should be micrometric. The scale of surface treatment from the nanometric point of view may be suitable to the adaptation and interaction of the molecular level as mediators, adhesion molecules and cell membrane structures such as integrins, cadherins and many other nanoscale structures.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
The optimal methodology for analysis of surfaces with the aim of understanding how the cells adhere and colonize must be in the micrometric range, in particular SEM rather than AFM. The SEM and AFM methodologies are fundamental in surface analysis of dental implants, but must be jointly and/or simultaneously employed. AFM seems to be the most suitable for studies aimed at the interaction of the implant surface with molecular-level structure while SEM is more suitable at the cellular level.
Background:
The biological response is directly related to the physicochemical properties of the dental implant surfaces. Both morphology and surface roughness may have influence on cell proliferation, differentiation and extracellular matrix synthesis, and on local factors of production including cell shape. The surfaces of the implants have undergone many changes in recent years. The topography of the implant surface is related to the degree of roughness and orientation of the surface irregularities. Many surface treatments have been used in dental implants in order to optimize surface properties, enhancing cell attachment to the implant and osseointegration. However, in order to draw conclusions about the bone response, more qualitative assessments are needed in terms of the surface topography and architecture in dental implants, correlating them with clinical and biological results.
Aim/Hypothesis:
It is believed that the surface modifications on the nanoscale affect both topography and the chemical properties of the surface. Although the clinical relevance of nanoscale structures is not yet widely recognized, it may be relevant for the process of osseointegration. It is of great interest to find out how the surface roughness of commercial implants appears at a nanometer level.This study aimed to analyze qualitatively the topography and architecture of different dental implant surfaces, comparing, describing them in the international standard developed by Wenneberg and Albrektsson (Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000) and correlating them with the possible molecular and cellular events of early osseointegration.
Material and Methods:
The implants were analyzed in three different areas: tops, valleys and flanks of the threads. Each implant surface was further analyzed in the apical and cervical regions. The five implants analyzed were: PI Brånemark Philosophy™(Exopro®), NanoTite® (Biomet 3i), SLA® (Straumann), TiUnite® (Nobel Biocare) and Xive® TG plus (Dentsply Friadent). The scanning electron microscope (Scanning Electron Microscope JSM-T220A, JEOL) employed in the qualitative assessment of the topography was used for detection of secondary electrons, operating at 10kV. The magnifications used to obtain the images were standardized at 35x, 1000x, 1500x and 2000x, totalling 18 images per sample. The atomic force microscope (Scanning Probe Microscope SPM-9600, Shimadzu) was operated in contact mode using a scanner with a maximum height of 15μm. Scanning dimensions: 3.0 x 3.0 μm2 and 15 x 15μm2 were used. The area analyzed was the top of the apical region of the implants due to its lower roughness, enabling data acquisition. Parameters were obtained such as arithmetic mean of the surface roughness (Ra), maximum height (Rz), the average ten-point roughness (Rzjis), the root mean square (Rq), the average height from a surface (Rp) and the mean depth from a surface (Rv). To evaluate the data in this study the patterns and topographic roughness of different specimens were evaluated in a comparative univariate analysis.
Results:
The NanoTite®, SLA® and Xive®TG plus implant surfaces in SEM are similar in their appearance of lacunae, differing in the surface plane; the TiUnite® implant surface features present coralliform/volcano formations while the Exopro® implant presents streaks in the form of small grooves. The average roughness (Ra) with AFM was higher in the TiUnite® implant, followed by Xive®TG plus, NanoTite®, Exopro® and SLA® implants. The study area is restricted to small points (nanoscale), which does not allow an overview of all structures (micrometer) for a real comparison of roughness. From the viewpoint of cellular accommodation on implant surface irregularities it seems logical that the suitable scale should be micrometric. The scale of surface treatment from the nanometric point of view may be suitable to the adaptation and interaction of the molecular level as mediators, adhesion molecules and cell membrane structures such as integrins, cadherins and many other nanoscale structures.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
The optimal methodology for analysis of surfaces with the aim of understanding how the cells adhere and colonize must be in the micrometric range, in particular SEM rather than AFM. The SEM and AFM methodologies are fundamental in surface analysis of dental implants, but must be jointly and/or simultaneously employed. AFM seems to be the most suitable for studies aimed at the interaction of the implant surface with molecular-level structure while SEM is more suitable at the cellular level.
Background:
The biological response is directly related to the physicochemical properties of the dental implant surfaces. Both morphology and surface roughness may have influence on cell proliferation, differentiation and extracellular matrix synthesis, and on local factors of production including cell shape. The surfaces of the implants have undergone many changes in recent years. The topography of the implant surface is related to the degree of roughness and orientation of the surface irregularities. Many surface treatments have been used in dental implants in order to optimize surface properties, enhancing cell attachment to the implant and osseointegration. However, in order to draw conclusions about the bone response, more qualitative assessments are needed in terms of the surface topography and architecture in dental implants, correlating them with clinical and biological results.
Aim/Hypothesis:
It is believed that the surface modifications on the nanoscale affect both topography and the chemical properties of the surface. Although the clinical relevance of nanoscale structures is not yet widely recognized, it may be relevant for the process of osseointegration. It is of great interest to find out how the surface roughness of commercial implants appears at a nanometer level.This study aimed to analyze qualitatively the topography and architecture of different dental implant surfaces, comparing, describing them in the international standard developed by Wenneberg and Albrektsson (Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000) and correlating them with the possible molecular and cellular events of early osseointegration.
Material and Methods:
The implants were analyzed in three different areas: tops, valleys and flanks of the threads. Each implant surface was further analyzed in the apical and cervical regions. The five implants analyzed were: PI Brånemark Philosophy™(Exopro®), NanoTite® (Biomet 3i), SLA® (Straumann), TiUnite® (Nobel Biocare) and Xive® TG plus (Dentsply Friadent). The scanning electron microscope (Scanning Electron Microscope JSM-T220A, JEOL) employed in the qualitative assessment of the topography was used for detection of secondary electrons, operating at 10kV. The magnifications used to obtain the images were standardized at 35x, 1000x, 1500x and 2000x, totalling 18 images per sample. The atomic force microscope (Scanning Probe Microscope SPM-9600, Shimadzu) was operated in contact mode using a scanner with a maximum height of 15μm. Scanning dimensions: 3.0 x 3.0 μm2 and 15 x 15μm2 were used. The area analyzed was the top of the apical region of the implants due to its lower roughness, enabling data acquisition. Parameters were obtained such as arithmetic mean of the surface roughness (Ra), maximum height (Rz), the average ten-point roughness (Rzjis), the root mean square (Rq), the average height from a surface (Rp) and the mean depth from a surface (Rv). To evaluate the data in this study the patterns and topographic roughness of different specimens were evaluated in a comparative univariate analysis.
Results:
The NanoTite®, SLA® and Xive®TG plus implant surfaces in SEM are similar in their appearance of lacunae, differing in the surface plane; the TiUnite® implant surface features present coralliform/volcano formations while the Exopro® implant presents streaks in the form of small grooves. The average roughness (Ra) with AFM was higher in the TiUnite® implant, followed by Xive®TG plus, NanoTite®, Exopro® and SLA® implants. The study area is restricted to small points (nanoscale), which does not allow an overview of all structures (micrometer) for a real comparison of roughness. From the viewpoint of cellular accommodation on implant surface irregularities it seems logical that the suitable scale should be micrometric. The scale of surface treatment from the nanometric point of view may be suitable to the adaptation and interaction of the molecular level as mediators, adhesion molecules and cell membrane structures such as integrins, cadherins and many other nanoscale structures.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
The optimal methodology for analysis of surfaces with the aim of understanding how the cells adhere and colonize must be in the micrometric range, in particular SEM rather than AFM. The SEM and AFM methodologies are fundamental in surface analysis of dental implants, but must be jointly and/or simultaneously employed. AFM seems to be the most suitable for studies aimed at the interaction of the implant surface with molecular-level structure while SEM is more suitable at the cellular level.