Elsevier

Dental Materials

Volume 23, Issue 7, July 2007, Pages 844-854
Dental Materials

Review
Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.025Get rights and content

Abstract

The osseointegration rate of titanium dental implants is related to their composition and surface roughness. Rough-surfaced implants favor both bone anchoring and biomechanical stability. Osteoconductive calcium phosphate coatings promote bone healing and apposition, leading to the rapid biological fixation of implants. The different methods used for increasing surface roughness or applying osteoconductive coatings to titanium dental implants are reviewed. Surface treatments, such as titanium plasma-spraying, grit-blasting, acid-etching, anodization or calcium phosphate coatings, and their corresponding surface morphologies and properties are described. Most of these surfaces are commercially available and have proven clinical efficacy (>95% over 5 years). The precise role of surface chemistry and topography on the early events in dental implant osseointegration remain poorly understood. In addition, comparative clinical studies with different implant surfaces are rarely performed. The future of dental implantology should aim to develop surfaces with controlled and standardized topography or chemistry. This approach will be the only way to understand the interactions between proteins, cells and tissues, and implant surfaces. The local release of bone stimulating or resorptive drugs in the peri-implant region may also respond to difficult clinical situations with poor bone quality and quantity. These therapeutic strategies should ultimately enhance the osseointegration process of dental implants for their immediate loading and long-term success.

Introduction

In the past 20 years, the number of dental implant procedures has increased steadily worldwide, reaching about one million dental implantations per year. The clinical success of oral implants is related to their early osseointegration. Geometry and surface topography are crucial for the short- and long-term success of dental implants. These parameters are associated with delicate surgical techniques, a prerequisite for a successful early clinical outcome [1]. After implantation, titanium implants interact with biological fluids and tissues. Direct bone apposition onto the surface of the titanium is critical for the rapid loading of dental implants. After the initial stages of osseointegration, both prosthetic biomechanical factors and patient hygiene are crucial for the long-term success of the implants. There are two types of response after implantation. The first type involves the formation of a fibrous soft tissue capsule around the implant. This fibrous tissue capsule does not ensure proper biomechanical fixation and leads to clinical failure of the dental implant. The second type of bone response is related to direct bone–implant contact without an intervening connective tissue layer. This is what is known as osseointegration. This biological fixation is considered to be a prerequisite for implant-supported prostheses and their long-term success. The rate and quality of osseointegration in titanium implants are related to their surface properties. Surface composition, hydrophilicity and roughness are parameters that may play a role in implant–tissue interaction and osseointegration.

This review focuses on the different surfaces and methods that aim to accelerate the osseointegration of dental implants. The physical and chemical properties of implant surfaces are discussed in relation to their biological and clinical behavior. Manufacturers of dental implants have developed a variety of surfaces with different compositions and degrees of roughness. However, there is controversy as to the optimal features for implant surfaces regarding osseointegration kinetics.

Section snippets

Chemical composition of the surface of dental implants

The chemical composition or charges on the surface of titanium implants differ, depending on their bulk composition and surface treatments. The composition and charges are critical for protein adsorption and cell attachment. Dental implants are usually made from commercially pure titanium or titanium alloys. Commercially pure titanium (cpTi) has various degrees of purity (graded from 1 to 4). This purity is characterized by oxygen, carbon and iron content. Most dental implants are made from

Surface roughness of dental implants

There are numerous reports that demonstrate that the surface roughness of titanium implants affects the rate of osseointegration and biomechanical fixation [9], [10]. Surface roughness can be divided into three levels depending on the scale of the features: macro-, micro- and nano-sized topologies.

The macro level is defined for topographical features as being in the range of millimetres to tens of microns. This scale is directly related to implant geometry, with threaded screw and macroporous

Osteoconductive calcium phosphate coatings on dental implants

Metal implants have been coated with layers of calcium phosphates mainly composed of hydroxyapatite. Following implantation, the release of calcium phosphate into the peri-implant region increases the saturation of body fluids and precipitates a biological apatite onto the surface of the implant [65], [66]. This layer of biological apatite might contain endogenous proteins and serve as a matrix for osteogenic cell attachment and growth [67]. The bone healing process around the implant is

Future trends in dental implant surfaces

A few strategies should be considered in order to improve both the short and long-term osseointegration of titanium dental implants. These future trends concern the modifications of surface roughness at the nanoscale level for promoting protein adsorption and cell adhesion, biomimetic calcium phosphate coatings for enhancing osteoconduction and the incorporation of biological drugs for accelerating the bone healing process in the peri-implant area.

Conclusion

There are a number of surfaces commercially available for dental implants. Most of these surfaces have proven clinical efficacy (>95% over 5 years). However, the development of these surfaces has been empirical, requiring numerous in vitro and in vivo tests. Most of these tests were not standardized, using different surfaces, cell populations or animal models. The exact role of surface chemistry and topography on the early events of the osseointegration of dental implants remain poorly

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Straumann AG (Bern, Switzerland) for providing the SLA samples, Astra Tech (Astra Zeneca, Rueil-Malmaison, France) for providing the TiOblast™ and OsseoSpeed™ samples. Cam Implants BV (Leiden, The Netherlands) is also acknowledged for providing the TPS and HA plasma-sprayed samples. We also thank Paul Pilet from the Miscoscopy Centre for SEM pictures and Kirsty Snaith for grammar corrections of the manuscript.

References (108)

  • L.F. Cooper et al.

    Fluoride modification effects on osteoblast behavior and bone formation at TiO(2) grit-blasted c.p. titanium endosseous implants

    Biomaterials

    (2006)
  • K. Yokoyama et al.

    Fracture mechanisms of retrieved titanium screw thread in dental implants

    Biomaterials

    (2002)
  • Y.T. Sul et al.

    Qualitative and quantitative observations of bone tissue reactions to anodised implants

    Biomaterials

    (2002)
  • J. Lee et al.

    Survival of hydroxypatite-coated implants: a meta-analytic review

    J Oral Maxillofac Surg

    (2000)
  • M. Bigerelle et al.

    Improvement in the morphology of Ti-based surfaces: a new process to increase in vitro human osteoblast response

    Biomaterials

    (2002)
  • X. Wang et al.

    Apatite deposition on thermally and anodically oxidized titanium surfaces in a simulated body fluid

    Biomaterials

    (2003)
  • B. Yang et al.

    Preparation of bioactive titanium metal via anodic oxidation treatment

    Biomaterials

    (2004)
  • F. Barrere et al.

    Nano-scale study of the nucleation and growth of calcium phosphate coating on titanium implants

    Biomaterials

    (2004)
  • P. Habibovic et al.

    Biological performance of uncoated and octacalcium phosphate-coated Ti6Al4V

    Biomaterials

    (2005)
  • Y. Liu et al.

    BMP-2 liberated from biomimetic implant coatings induces and sustains direct ossification in an ectopic rat model

    Bone

    (2005)
  • T. Albrektsson et al.

    Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man

    Acta Orthop Scand

    (1981)
  • S. Steinemann

    Titanium-the material of choice?

    Periodontology 2000

    (1998)
  • D. Buser et al.

    Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface

    J Dent Res

    (2004)
  • G. Zhao et al.

    High surface energy enhances cell response to titanium substrate microstructure

    J Biomed Mater Res A

    (2005)
  • A. Bagno et al.

    Surface treatments and roughness properties of Ti-based biomaterials

    J Mater Sci Mater Med

    (2004)
  • L. Carlsson et al.

    Bone response to plasma-cleaned titanium implants

    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

    (1989)
  • A. Wennerberg et al.

    Glow discharge pre-treated implants combined with temporary bone ischaemia

    Swed Dent J

    (1991)
  • D.L. Cochran et al.

    Bone response to unloaded and loaded titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a histometric study in the canine mandible

    J Biomed Mater Res

    (1998)
  • A. Wennerberg et al.

    A histomorphometric evaluation of screw-shaped implants each prepared with two surface roughnesses

    Clin Oral Implants Res

    (1998)
  • D. Buser et al.

    Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs

    J Biomed Mater Res

    (1991)
  • K. Gotfredsen et al.

    Anchorage of TiO2-blasted, HA-coated, and machined implants: an experimental study with rabbits

    J Biomed Mater Res

    (1995)
  • A. Wennerberg et al.

    Histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies

    Clin Oral Implant Res

    (1996)
  • W. Becker et al.

    A prospective multicenter clinical trial comparing one- and two-stage titanium screw-shaped fixtures with one-stage plasma-sprayed solid-screw fixtures

    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res

    (2000)
  • T. Albrektsson et al.

    The impact of oral implants—past and future, 1966–2042

    J Can Dent Assoc

    (2005)
  • T. Testori et al.

    A prospective multicenter clinical study of the Osseotite implant: four-year interim report

    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

    (2001)
  • K. Conner et al.

    Guided bone regeneration around titanium plasma-sprayed, acid-etched and hydroxyapatite-coated implants in the canine model

    J Periodontol

    (2003)
  • M. Esposito et al.

    Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev

    (2005)
  • R.M. Urban et al.

    Dissemination of wear particles to the liver, spleen and abdominal lymph nodes of patients with hip or knee replacement

    J Bone Jt Surg Am

    (2000)
  • M. Roccuzzo et al.

    Early loading of sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) implants: a prospective split-mouth comparative study

    Clin Oral Implants Res

    (2001)
  • M. Taba Junior et al.

    Radiographic evaluation of dental implants with different surface treatments: an experimental study in dogs

    Implant Dent

    (2003)
  • C.J. Ivanoff et al.

    Histologic evaluation of the bone integration of TiO(2) blasted and turned titanium microimplants in humans

    Clin Oral Implants Res

    (2001)
  • L. Rasmusson et al.

    Effects of implant design and surface on bone regeneration and implant stability: an experimental study in the dog mandible

    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res

    (2001)
  • K. Gotfredsen et al.

    A prospective 5-year study of fixed partial prostheses supported by implants with machined and TiO2-blasted surface

    J Prosthodont

    (2001)
  • L. Rasmusson et al.

    A 10-year follow-up study of titanium dioxide-blasted implants

    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res

    (2005)
  • D. van Steenberghe et al.

    A prospective split-mouth comparative study of two screw-shaped self-tapping pure titanium implant systems

    Clin Oral Implants Res

    (2000)
  • P. Astrand et al.

    Astra Tech and Branemark System implants: a prospective 5-year comparative study. Results after one year

    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res

    (1999)
  • A. Novaes et al.

    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)
  • M. Piatelli et al.

    Bone response to machined and resorbable blast material titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits

    J Oral Implantol

    (2002)
  • W.D. Mueller et al.

    Evaluation of the interface between bone and titanium surfaces being blasted by aluminium oxide or bioceramic particles

    Clin Oral Implants Res

    (2003)
  • C. Massaro et al.

    Comparative investigation of the surface of commercial titanium dental implants. Part 1: chemical composition

    J Mater Sci Mater Med

    (2002)
  • Cited by (1995)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text