Wettability of titanium implants depending upon surface properties

Young-Soo Han; Sang-Wan Shin

doi:10.4047/jkap.2009.47.1.12

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.47(1) > 1034568

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Han and Shin: Wettability of titanium implants depending upon surface properties

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47(1):12-20.

Published online: 18 December 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2009.47.1.12

Wettability of titanium implants depending upon surface properties

Young-Soo Han, DDS¹, Sang-Wan Shin, DDS, MPh, MSc, PhD^2,^∗

^¹Graduate Student, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University

^²Professor, Advanced Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University

Corresponding Author: Sang-Wan Shin Dept. of Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University, 97, Gurodonggil, Guro-Gu, Seoul, 152-703, Korea +82 2 818 6874: e-mail, swshin@korea.ac.kr

Received 1 June 200823 December 2008 Accepted 30 December 2008

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Statement of problem

When an implant is fixed, a fixture comes into contact with a tissue fluid. Adhesion of a tissue fluid to a surface of implant is various case by case.

Purpose

The ultimate goal of this work is to analyze a correlation between a surface roughness and wettability of implant specimens. A measurement for wettability is performed considering 4 types of specimen implant with surface treatments different from each other to investigate the change of wettability with the elapse of time.

Material and methods

Firstly, 20 specimens of titanium were prepared. The specimen were made of a commercial Titanium Grade IV with the diameter of 10 mm and the thickness of 1 mm. According to the method of surface treatment, the specimens were classified into 4 groups of 5 specimens per group. Group A: Machined Surface Group B: Anodized surface Group C: RBM (HA blasting) surface Group D: CMP (calcium methaphosphate) coating surface. Surface roughness of specimen was measured using SV-3000S4 (Mituyoto, Japan). The measurement was based on the standard of JIS1994. Sessile drop method was used to measure the wettability, which measures contact angle between implant disc and saline with the time interval of 5, 10, and 15 seconds. SPSS 11.0 was used to analyze the collected data. In order to analyze the difference of wettability and surface roughness according to implant surface treatment method. The statistical significance was tested with the confidence level of 95%. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation of surface roughness and wettability.

Results

The difference of surface roughness was statistically significant in the order of Group C (1.69 ± 0.26), Group D (1.58 ± 0.16), Group B (0.78 ± 0.14) Group A (0.18 ± 0.05). The wettability has also a statistically significant difference, which was in the order of group B (17.70 ± 2.66), Group C (27.86 ± 4.52), Group D (66.28 ± 3.70) Group A (70.52 ± 8.00). There was no difference in wettability with the passage of time.

Conclusions

1. The surface roughness was high in the order of RBM, CMP, Anodized, Machined group (P < .05). 2. The wettability was high in the order of Anodized, RBM, CMP, Machined group (P < .05). 3. There was no statistical significance in the correlation of surface roughness and wettability. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47:12-20)

Keywords: Wettability, Surface roughness, Sessile drop method

REFERENCES

1.Bra ° nemark PI., Adell R., Breine U., Hansson BO., Lindstrom J., Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969. 3:81–100.

2.Adell R., Lekholm U., Rockler B., Bra ° nemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981. 10:387–416.

3.Adell R., Eriksson B., Lekholm U., Bra ° nemark PI., Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990. 5:347–59.

4.Albrektsson T., Dahl E., Enbom L., Engevall S., Engquist B., Eriksson AR., Feldmann G., Freiberg N., Glantz PO., Kjellman O, et al. Osseointegrated oral implants. A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted Nobelpharma implants. J Periodontol. 1988. 59:287–96.

5.Albrektsson T., Sennerby L. State of the art in oral implants. J Clin Periodontol. 1991. 18:474–81.

6.Eckert SE., Parein A., Myshin HL., Padilla JL. Validation of dental implant systems through a review of literature supplied by system manufacturers. J Prosthet Dent. 1997. 77:271–9.

7.Naert I., Quirynen M., van Steenberghe D., Darius P. A study of 589 consecutive implants supporting complete fixed prostheses. Part II: Prosthetic aspects. J Prosthet Dent. 1992. 68:949–56.

8.Cordioli G., Majzoub Z., Piattelli A., Scarano A. Removal torque and histomorphometric investigation of 4 different titanium surfaces: an experimental study in the rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000. 15:668–74.

9.Gotfredsen K., Wennerberg A., Johansson C., Skovgaard LT., Hj фrting-Hansen E. Anchorage of TiO2-blasted, HA-coated, and machined implants: an experimental study with rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995. 29:1223–31.

10.Gotfredsen K., Berglundh T., Lindhe J. Anchorage of titanium implants with different surface characteristics: an experimental study in rabbits. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000. 2:120–8.

11.Esposito M., Hirsch JM., Lekholm U., Thomsen P. Failure patterns of four osseointegrated oral implant systems. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1997. 8:843–7.

12.Sul YT., Johansson CB., Petronis S., Krozer A., Jeong Y., Wennerberg A., Albrektsson T. Characteristics of the surface oxides on turned and electrochemically oxidized pure titanium implants up to dielectric breakdown: the oxide thickness, micropore configurations, surface roughness, crystal structure and chemical composition. Biomaterials. 2002. 23:491–501.

13.Buser D., Broggini N., Wieland M., Schenk RK., Denzer AJ., Cochran DL., Hoffmann B., Lussi A., Steinemann SG. Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface. J Dent Res. 2004. 83:529–33.

14.Park JY., Gemmell CH., Davies JE. Platelet interactions with titanium: modulation of platelet activity by surface topography. Biomaterials. 2001. 22:2671–82.

15.Kim JS., Shin SY., Ryu JJ. A study on the stability of 5 different surface treatment methods to dental implant using resonance frequency and histomorphometric analysis. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2005. 43:78–94.

16.MacDonald DE., Deo N., Markovic B., Stranick M., Somasundaran P. Adsorption and dissolution behavior of human plasma fibronectin on thermally and chemically modified titanium dioxide particles. Biomaterials. 2002. 23:1269–79.

17.Rupp F., Scheideler L., Rehbein D., Axmann D., Geis-Gerstorfer J. Roughness induced dynamic changes of wettability of acid etched titanium implant modifications. Biomaterials. 2004. 25:1429–38.

18.Listgarten MA., Buser D., Steinemann SG., Donath K., Lang NP., Weber HP. Light and transmission electron microscopy of the intact interfaces between non-submerged titanium-coated epoxy resin implants and bone or gingiva. J Dent Res. 1992. 71:364–71.

19.Gotfredsen K., Nimb L., Hjorting-Hansen E., Jensen JS., Holmen A. Histomorphometric and removal torque analysis for TiO2-blasted titanium implants. An experimental study on dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1992. 3:77–84.

20.Buser D., Schenk RK., Steinemann S., Fiorellini JP., Fox CH., Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res. 1991. 25:889–902.

21.Wilke HJ., Claes L., Steinmann S. The influence of various titanium surfaces on the interface shear strength between implants and bone. Clinical implant Materials. Advances in Biomaterials. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V..

22.Hanson S. On the role of surface roughness for load bearing bone implants M. SC. Thesis Centre for Biomechanics. Calmers University of Goteborg. Goteborg. 1991.

Fig. 1.

Surface treated disc.

Fig. 2.

Disc surface roughness measurement machine.

Fig. 3.

SEM photographs of surface treated titanium. A (× 500), B (× 1,000)

Fig. 4.

Photographs of surface wettability. A, after 1 second B, after 2 second C, after 3 second D, after 4 second

Fig. 5.

Change of surface wettability by the time processing. 1: Machined surface 2: Anodized surface 3: RBM surface 4: CMP surface.

Table I.

Classification of experimental implants

Groups	Surfae type	N
Group A	Machined surface	5
Group B	Anodized surface	5
Group C	RBM surface	5
Group D	CMP surface	5

Table II.

Distribution analysis for surface roughness by implant surface

Groups	Mean	SD	F value	P value	Scheffe ´ PHT
Machined	0.18	0.05	273.47	0.000∗	Machined < Anodized < (CMP = RBM)
Anodized	0.78	0.14
RBM	1.69	0.26
CMP	1.58	0.16
Total	1.05	0.64

^∗ P < .05

Table III.

Distribution analysis of wettability by implant surface treatment

Groups	Mean	SD	F value	P - value	Scheffe ´PHT
Machined	70.52	8.00	135.59	0.000∗	Anodized < RBM < (CMP = Machined)
Anodized	17.70	2.66
RBM	27.86	4.52
CMP	66.28	3.70
Total	45.59	24.20

^∗ P < .05

Table IV.

Distribution analysis for wettability by the time

Time	Mean	SD	F value	P - value	Scheffe ´PHT
5 sec	45.59	24.20	0.006	0.994	15sec = 10sec = 5sec
10 sec	45.01	24.30
15 sec	44.80	24.29
Total	45.13	23.85

^∗ P < .05

Table V.

Mean and SD of wettability by the time

Groups	5 sec	10 sec	15 sec
Machined	70.52 (8.00)	70.34 (7.83)	70.12 (7.68)
Anodized	17.70 (2.66)	16.70 (2.18)	16.42 (1.95)
RBM	27.86 (4.52)	27.60 (4.49)	27.46 (4.57)
CMP	66.28 (3.70)	65.40 (3.88)	65.20 (3.89)

Table VI.

Distribution analysis of wettability by the time

Source	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Squares	F value	P value
Surface properties	32333.42	3	10777.81	423.494	0.000∗
Time	6.70	2	3.35	0.132	0.877
S.properties∗ time	1.94	6	0.32	0.013	1.000
Corrected Total	1221.59	48

^∗ P < .05

Table VII.

Corelationship wettability with surface roughness

Groups	Wettability Mean	Surface Roughness Mean	Pearson r	P value
Machined	70.49	0.18	-0.189	0.501
Anodized	17.65	0.78	-0.140	0.619
RBM	27.88	1.69	0.061	0.830
CMP	66.52	1.58	0.256	0.358
Total	45.64	1.05	-0.234	0.071∗

^∗ P < .1,

^∗∗ P < .05

TOOLS

Similar articles