Science

 

Nanometer-scale features onmicrometer-scale surface texturing: A bone histological, gene expression, and nano mechanical study

 

Paulo G. Coelho, Tadahiro Takayama, Daniel Yoo, Ryo Jimbo, Sanjay Karunagaran, Nick Tovar, Malvin N. Janal, Seiichi Yamano.

 

Bone, Issue 65, Aug. 2014. Bone (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2014.05.004

Article History: Micro- and nanoscale surface modifications have been the focus of multiple studies in the pursuit of accelerating 24bone apposition or osseointegration at the implant surface. Here, we evaluated histological and nanomechanical 25properties, and gene expression, for a microblasted surface presenting nanometer-scale texture within a 26micrometer-scale texture (MB) (Ossean™ Surface, Intra-Lock International, Boca Raton, FL) versus a dual-acid 27etched surface presenting texture at the micrometer-scale only (AA), in a rodent femur model for 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks in vivo.

 

Following animal sacrifice, samples were evaluated in terms of histomorphometry, biomechanical29 properties through nanoindentation, and gene expression by real-time quantitative reverse transcription 30polymerase chain reaction analysis. Although the histomorphometric, and gene expression analysis results 31were not significantly different between MB and AA at 4 and 8 weeks, significant differences were seen at 1 32and 2 weeks.

 

The expression of the genes encoding collagen type I (COL-1), and osteopontin (OPN) was significantly33 higher for MB than for AA at 1 week, indicating up-regulated osteoprogenitor and osteoblast differentiation34. At 2 weeks, significantly up-regulated expression of the genes for COL-1, runt-related transcription factor 2 35(RUNX-2), osterix, and osteocalcin (OCN) indicated progressive mineralization in newly formed bone.

 

The nanomechanical36 properties tested by the nanoindentation presented significantly higher-rank hardness and elastic 37modulus for the MB compared to AA at all time points tested. In conclusion, the nanotopographical featured 38surfaces presented an overall higher host-to-implant response compared to the microtextured only surfaces.

 

39The statistical differences observed in some of the osteogenic gene expression between the two groups may 40shed some insight into the role of surface texture and its extent in the observed bone healing mechanisms. 4142 © 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Identification card and codification of the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 dental implant surfaces. Part 1: description of the Implant Surface Identification Standard (ISIS) codification system.

 

David M. Dohan Ehrenfest, Marco Del Corso, Byung-Soo Kang, Philippe Leclercq, Ziv Mazor, Robert A. Horowitz, Philippe Russe, Hee-Kyun Oh, De-Rong Zou, Jamil Awad Shibli, Hom-Lay Wang, Jean-Pierre Bernard, and Gilberto Sammartino.

Abstract

 

Dental implants are commonly used in dental therapeutics, but dental practitioners only have limited information about the characteristics of the implant materials they take the responsibility to place in their patients. Manufacturers, scientists and administrations are also lacking of a consensual and clear method and terminology to characterize and control implant surfaces.

 

The objective of this series of 5 articles is to define and describe the Implant Surface Identification Standard (ISIS) system for the chemical and morphological characterization of dental implant surfaces, and to use it to characterize and establish the respective Identification (ID) Card and code of 62 implant surfaces available on the market. In this first part, the current version of the ISIS system and methodology is described and discussed.

 

Using standardized protocols of analysis and terminology, each osseointegrated implant surface can be defined using a standardized characterization code. First the ISIS codification system describes the surface chemical composition: the core material (titanium grades, zirconia, hydroxy-apatite) and the chemical modification (impregnation, coating, pollution). The system then defines the surface morphology (topography, structures) at the microscale (microroughness, micropores, microparticles) and nanoscale (nanoroughness, nanopatterning, nanotubes, nanoparticles, nanosmooth), and its global architecture (homogeneity, cracks, fractal architecture).

 

This standardized characterization, classification and codification system allows to clarify the identity of each surface and to easily sort out their differences, to control implant production and to facilitate communication. Therefore it offers a global solution for the manufacturers, scientists, implant users, administrative authorities and the interactions of these 4 actors, and it could be suggested as the basis of an ISO standard in the future.Keywords. Dental implant, nanostructure, osseointegration, surface properties, titanium.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Identification card and codification of the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 dental implant surfaces. Part 2: anodized and Titanium Plasma-Sprayed (TPS) surfaces (Group 1, metallurgy modification).

 

David M. Dohan Ehrenfest, Marco Del Corso, Byung-Soo Kang, Philippe Leclercq, Ziv Mazor, Robert A. Horowitz, Philippe Russe, Hee-Kyun Oh, De-Rong Zou, Jamil Awad Shibli, Hom-Lay Wang, Jean-Pierre Bernard, and Gilberto Sammartino.

 

POSEIDO. 2014;2(1):23-35.

Background and objectives: Dental implants are commonly used in dental therapeutics, but dental practitioners only have limited information about the characteristics of the implant materials they take the responsibility to place in their patients. The objective of this work is to describe the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 implant surfaces available on the market and establish their respective Identification (ID) Card, following the Implant Surface Identification Standard (ISIS). In this second part, surfaces with metallurgy modification (anodization, titanium plasma-spraying TPS) were investigated.

 

Materials and Methods: Eight different implant surfaces were characterized: TiUnite (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden), Ospol (Ospol, Höllviken, Sweden), INNO (Cowellmedi Co., Busan, Korea), Shinhung M (Shinhung Co., Seoul, Korea), Tecom REP (Tecom Implantology/Titanmed, Galbiate, Italy), BioSpark (Keystone Dental, Burlington, MA, USA), Kohno HRPS (Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, Italy), Kohno DES HRPS (Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, Italy). Three samples of each implant were analyzed. Superficial chemical composition was analyzed using XPS/ESCA (X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy/Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis) and the 100nm in-depth profile was established using Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES). The microtopography was quantified using optical profilometry (OP). The general morphology and the nanotopography were evaluated using a Field Emission-Scanning Electron Microscope (FE-SEM). Finally, the characterization code of each surface was established using the ISIS, and the main characteristics of each surface were summarized in a reader-friendly ID card.

 

Results: From a chemical standpoint, in the 8 different surfaces of this group, all were based on a commercially pure titanium (grade 2 or 4), what appeared typical of surfaces produced through a modification of the core material metallurgy using anodization or titanium-plasma spraying. The 6 anodized surfaces presented different forms of chemical impregnation of the titanium core. Seven surfaces presented different degrees of inorganic pollutions. Only 1 surface presented no pollution. From a morphological standpoint, 5 surfaces were microporous (anodization) and 3 microrough, with different microtopographical aspects and values. Seven surfaces were smooth on the nanoscale, and therefore presented no significant and repetitive nanostructures. One implant was nanopatterned through a specific anodization process. Six implants presented various forms of cracks: three anodized implants had local cracks, while TiUnite and Kohno HRPS were covered with extended cracks all over the surface. Anodized surfaces could be considered as homogeneous, while TPS surfaces were heterogeneous (specificities of the production process). No surface was fractal.

 

Discussion and Conclusion: The ISIS systematic approach allowed to gather the main characteristics of these commercially available products in a clear and accurate ID card. The implants of the Group 1 have very specific morphological characteristics (frequent cracks and absence of nanotexture, specific microroughness or porosity), and users should be aware of these specificities if they decide to use these specific technologies.

 

Keywords: Dental implant, nanostructure, osseointegration, surface properties, titanium.

Identification card and codification of the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 dental implant surfaces. Part 3: sand-blasted/acid-etched (SLA type) and related surfaces (Group 2A, main subtractive process).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

David M. Dohan Ehrenfest, Marco Del Corso, Byung-Soo Kang, Philippe Leclercq, Ziv Mazor, Robert A. Horowitz, Philippe Russe, Hee-Kyun Oh, De-Rong Zou, Jamil Awad Shibli, Hom-Lay Wang, Jean-Pierre Bernard, and Gilberto Sammartino.

 

Abstract

 

Background and objectives: Dental implants are commonly used in dental therapeutics, but dental practitioners only have limited information about the characteristics of the implant materials they take the responsibility to place in their patients. The objective of this work is to describe the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 implant surfaces available on the market and establish their respective Identification (ID) Card, following the Implant Surface Identification Standard (ISIS). In this third part, surfaces produced through the main subtractive process (sand-blasting/acid-etching, SLA-type and related) were investigated.

 

Materials and Methods: Eighteen different implant surfaces were characterized: Straumann SLA (ITI Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), Ankylos (Dentsply Friadent, Mannheim, Germany), Xive S (Dentsply Friadent, Mannheim, Germany), Frialit (Dentsply Friadent, Mannheim, Germany), Promote (Camlog, Basel, Switzerland), Dentium Superline (Dentium Co., Seoul, Korea), Osstem SA (Osstem implant Co., Busan, Korea), Genesio (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), Aadva (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), MIS Seven (MIS Implants Technologies, Bar Lev, Israel), ActivFluor (Blue Sky Bio, Grayslake, IL, USA), Tekka SA2 (Tekka, Brignais, France), Twinkon Ref (Tekka, Brignais, France), Bredent OCS blueSKY (Bredent Medical, Senden, Germany), Magitech MS2010 (Magitech M2I, Levallois-Perret, France), EVL Plus (SERF, Decines, France), Alpha Bio (Alpha Bio Tec Ltd, Petach Tikva, Israel), Neoporos (Neodent, Curitiba, Brazil). Three samples of each implant were analyzed. Superficial chemical composition was analyzed using XPS/ESCA (X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy/Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis) and the 100nm in-depth profile was established using Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES). The microtopography was quantified using optical profilometry (OP). The general morphology and the nanotopography were evaluated using a Field Emission-Scanning Electron Microscope (FE-SEM). Finally, the characterization code of each surface was established using the ISIS, and the main characteristics of each surface were summarized in a reader-friendly ID card.

 

Results: From a chemical standpoint, in the 18 different surfaces of this group, 11 were based on a commercially pure titanium (grade 2 or 4) and 7 on a titanium-aluminium alloy (grade 5 or grade 23 ELI titanium). 4 surfaces presented some chemical impregnation of the titanium core, and 5 surfaces were covered with residual alumina blasting particles. 15 surfaces presented different degrees of inorganic pollutions, and 2 presented a severe organic pollution overcoat. Only 3 surfaces presented no pollution (and also no chemical modification at all): GC Aadva, Genesio, MIS Seven. From a morphological standpoint, all surfaces were microrough, with different microtopographical aspects and values. All surfaces were nanosmooth, and therefore presented no significant and repetitive nanostructures. 14 surfaces were homogeneous and 4 heterogeneous. None of them was fractal.

 

Discussion and Conclusion: The ISIS systematic approach allowed to gather the main characteristics of these commercially available products in a clear and accurate ID card. The SLA-type surfaces have specific morphological characteristics (microrough, nanosmooth, with rare and in general accidental chemical modification) and are the most frequent surfaces used in the industry. However they present different designs, and pollutions are often detected (with blasting/etching residues particularly). Users should be aware of these specificities if they decide to use these products.

 

Keywords: Dental implant, nanostructure, osseointegration, surface properties, titanium.

Identification card and codification of the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 dental implant surfaces. Part 4: Resorbable Blasting Media (RBM), Dual Acid-Etched (DAE), Subtractive Impregnated Micro/Nanotextured (SIMN) and related surfaces (Group 2B, other subtractive process).

 

David M. Dohan Ehrenfest, Marco Del Corso, Byung-Soo Kang, Philippe Leclercq, Ziv Mazor, Robert A. Horowitz, Philippe Russe, Hee-Kyun Oh, De-Rong Zou, Jamil Awad Shibli, Hom-Lay Wang, Jean-Pierre Bernard, and Gilberto Sammartino.

Abstract

 

Background and objectives: Dental implants are commonly used in dental therapeutics, but dental practitioners only have limited information about the characteristics of the implant materials they take the responsibility to place in their patients. The objective of this work is to describe the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 implant surfaces available on the market and establish their respective Identification (ID) Card, following the Implant Surface Identification Standard (ISIS). In this fourth part, surfaces produced through other subtractive processes (resorbable blasting media RBM, dual acid-etching DAE, subtractive impregnation micro/nanotexturization SIMN and others) were investigated.

 

Materials and Methods: Twenty different implant surfaces were characterized: MTX (Zimmer, Carlsbad, CA, USA), Biohorizons RBT (Biohorizons, Birmingham, AL, USA), OsseoFix (ADIN, Afula, Israel), Ossean (Intra-Lock, Boca Raton, Florida, USA), Blossom Ossean (Intra-Lock, Boca Raton, Florida, USA), Osstem RBM (Osstem implant Co., Busan, Korea), Ossean G23 ELI (Intra-Lock, Boca Raton, Florida, USA), SBM body (Implant Direct LLC, Calabasas, CA, USA), MegaGen RBM (MegaGen Co., Seoul, Korea), DIO BioTite-M (DIO Corporation, Busan, Korea), Blue Sky Bio RBM (Blue Sky Bio, Grayslake, IL, USA), Anthogyr BCP (Anthogyr, Sallanches, France), Shinhung RBM+ (Shinhung Co., Seoul, Korea), Neobiotech CMI (Neobiotech Co., Seoul, Korea), Osseospeed (AstraTech, Mölndal, Sweden), 3I OsseoTite (Biomet 3I, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA), 3I OsseoTite 2 (Biomet 3I, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA), Neoss ProActive (Neoss Ltd, Harrogate, UK), BTI Interna (Biotechnology Institute, Vitoria, Spain), Winsix WMRS (BioSAF IN, Ancona, Italy). Three samples of each implant were analyzed. Superficial chemical composition was analyzed using XPS/ESCA (X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy/Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis) and the 100nm in-depth profile was established using Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES). The microtopography was quantified using optical profilometry (OP). The general morphology and the nanotopography were evaluated using a Field Emission-Scanning Electron Microscope (FE-SEM). Finally, the characterization code of each surface was established using the ISIS, and the main characteristics of each surface were summarized in a reader-friendly ID card.

 

Results: From a chemical standpoint, in the 20 different surfaces of this group, 12 were based on a commercially pure titanium (grade 4) and 8 on a titanium-aluminium alloy (grade 5 or grade 23 ELI titanium). 16 surfaces presented different forms of chemical impregnation (most frequently with calcium phosphate CaP) and one surface presented a CaP particles discontinuous coating of the titanium core. 15 surfaces presented different degrees of inorganic pollutions, and 4 presented a significant organic pollution overcoat. Only 5 surfaces presented no pollution (Osseospeed, Ossean, Blossom Osseans and Blue Sky Bio). From a morphological standpoint, all surfaces were microrough, with different microtopographical aspects and values. 16 surfaces were smooth on the nanoscale, and therefore presented no significant and repetitive nanostructures. Four implants only were nanorough (Osseospeed, Ossean, Blossom Osseans), following a SIMN production process. One surface (ProActive) was covered with extended cracks all over the surface. 17 surfaces were homogeneous and 3 heterogeneous. Only 3 surfaces were fractal.

 

Discussion and Conclusion: The ISIS systematic approach allowed to gather the main characteristics of these commercially available products in a clear and accurate ID card. The RBM surfaces have specific morphological characteristics (microrough, CaP impregnation) and are frequently used in the industry, and many other technologies exist. All these surfaces presented different designs, and pollutions were often detected. Users should be aware of these specificities if they decide to use these products. Finally, the SIMN surfaces appeared as an interesting evolution for the various subtractive technologies, to develop specific chemical modification, microtexture and nano texture.

Identification card and codification of the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 dental implant surfaces. Part 5: chemically coated surfaces (Group 3, coating) and implant collar surfaces (Group 4, collar).

 

David M. Dohan Ehrenfest, Marco Del Corso, Byung-Soo Kang, Philippe Leclercq, Ziv Mazor, Robert A. Horowitz, Philippe Russe, Hee-Kyun Oh, De-Rong Zou, Jamil Awad Shibli, Hom-Lay Wang, Jean-Pierre Bernard, and Gilberto Sammartino.

Abstract

 

Background and objectives: Dental implants are commonly used in dental therapeutics, but dental practitioners only have limited information about the characteristics of the implant materials they take the responsibility to place in their patients. The objective of this work is to describe the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 implant surfaces available on the market and establish their respective Identification (ID) Card, following the Implant Surface Identification Standard (ISIS). In this fifth part, coated surfaces and some collar surfaces were investigated.

 

Materials and Methods: Sixteen different implant surfaces were characterized: NanoTite (Biomet 3I, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA), SLActive (ITI Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), Roxolid SLActive (ITI Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), Xpeed (MegaGen Co., Seoul, Korea), Xpeed Plus (MegaGen Co., Seoul, Korea), Inicell (Thommen, Waldenburg, Switzerland), Integra-CP/NanoTite (Bicon, Boston, MA, USA), Dentis Haptite (Dentis, Daegu, Korea), Legacy 2 HA (Implant Direct LLC, Calabasas, CA, USA), Biohorizons HA (Biohorizons, Birmingham, AL, USA), Osstem HA (Osstem implant Co., Busan, Korea), DIO BioTite-H (DIO Co., Busan, Korea), Laser-Lok collar (Biohorizons, Birmingham, AL, USA), SBM collar (Implant Direct, Calabasas, CA, USA), Ossean collar (Intra-Lock, Boca Raton, Florida, USA), Kohno DES ZirTi (Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, Italy). Three samples of each implant were analyzed. Superficial chemical composition was analyzed using XPS/ESCA (X-RayPhotoelectron Spectroscopy/Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis) and the 100nm in-depth profile was established using Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES). The microtopography was quantified using optical profilometry (OP). The general morphology and the nanotopography were evaluated using a Field Emission-Scanning Electron Microscope (FE-SEM). Finally, the characterization code of each surface was established using the ISIS, and the main characteristics of each surface were summarized in a reader- friendly ID card.

 

Results: From a chemical standpoint, in the 16 different surfaces of this group, 5 were based on a commercially pure titanium (grade 4), 4 on a titanium-aluminium alloy (grade 5 or 23), 1 on a titanium-zirconium alloy, 3 on hydroxyapatite, 1 on brushite and 2 on a calcium phosphate core. 13 surfaces presented different forms of chemical impregnation or discontinuous coating of the core material. 15 surfaces presented different degrees of inorganic pollutions, and 1 presented also some organic pollution overcoat. Only 1 surface presented no pollution (Ossean collar). From a morphological standpoint, 1 surface was micropatterned (laser patterning) and 15 microrough, with different microtopographical aspects and values. 8 surfaces were smooth on the nanoscale, and therefore presented no significant and repetitive nanostructures. Eight surfaces were nanomodified: 2 implants were nanorough (Haptite and Ossean collar) and 6 were covered with nanoparticles (CaP, NaCl or Ca nanocrystals deposition: NanoTite, SLActive and Xpeed). Hydroxyapatite and brushite coated surfaces were heterogeneous and covered with extended cracks all over the surface. Only 6 surfaces were homogeneous and 10 were heterogeneous. Only one surface (Ossean collar) was fractal.

 

Discussion and Conclusion: The ISIS systematic approach allowed to gather the main characteristics of these commercially available products in a clear and accurate ID card. Coated surfaces had very specific morphological characteristics depending on the type of coating (nanocrystals heterogeneous deposition, or heterogeneous maximal microroughness with extended cracks for example). All these surfaces presented different designs, and pollutions were often detected. Users should be aware of these specificities if they decide to use these products. The development of new surfaces for the implant cervical area is also an important clinical paradigm users should be aware about. Finally, the diversity of the surfaces analyzed in this study illustrated that the ISIS system could be an interesting basis for the development of a clear and simple ISO standard for dental implant surfaces and other implantable devices.

Fractal patterns applied to implant surface: definitions and perspectives

 

David Marcel Dohan Ehrenfest, DDS, MS, PhD1

University of Gothenburg, Department of Biomaterials, University of Gothenburg

 

J Oral Implantol. 2011 Oct;37(5):506-9. Epub 2011 Jun 13.

Abstract

 

Fractal patterns are frequently found in the Nature, but they are difficult to reproduce in artificial objects such as implantable materials. In this article, a definition of the concept of fractals for osseointegrated surfaces is suggested, based on the search for quasi self-similarity on at least 3 scales of investigation: microscale, nanoscale and atomic/crystal scale. Following this definition, the fractal dimension of some surfaces may be defined (illustrated here with Intra-Lock Ossean surface). However the biological effects of this architecture are still unknown and should be examined carefully in the future.

Identification card and codification of the chemical and morphological characteristics of 14 dental implant surfaces.

 

David Marcel Dohan Ehrenfest, DDS, MS, PhD1, Lydia Vazquez, Yeong-Joon Park, Gilberto Sammartino,

and Jean-Pierre Bernard Chonnam National University School of Dentistry, LoB5 unit, School of Dentistry, Gwangju, South Korea

 

Journal of Oral Implantology: October 2011, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 525-542. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00080

Abstract

 

Dental implants are commonly used in daily practice, however most surgeons do not really know the characteristics of these biomedical devices they are placing in their patients. The objective of this work is to describe the chemical and morphological characteristics of 14 implant surfaces available on the market, and to establish a simple and clear identification (ID) card for all of them, following the classification procedure developed in the Dohan Ehrenfest et al. (2010) Codification (DEC) system.

 

Fourteen different implant surfaces were characterized:

1. TiUnite,

2. Ospol,

3. Kohno,

4. Osseospeed,

5. Ankylos,

6. MTX,

7. Promote,

8. BTI Interna,

9. EVL,

10. Twinkon,

11. Ossean,

12. NanoTite,

13. SLActive,

14. Integra-CP.

 

Superficial chemical composition was analyzed using XPS/ESCA and the 100nm in-depth profile was established using AES. The microtopography was quantified using light interferometry (IFM). The general morphology and the nanotopography were evaluated using a FESEM. Finally, the characterization code of each surface was established using the DEC, and the main characteristics of each surface were summarized in a reader-friendly ID card. Results: FROM A CHEMICAL STANDPOINT, in the 14 different surfaces, 10 were based on a commercially pure titanium (grade 2 or 4), 3 on a titanium-aluminium alloy (grade 5 titanium), and the last one on a calcium phosphate core.

 

9 surfaces presented different forms of chemical impregnation or discontinuous coating of the titanium core, and 3 surfaces were covered with residual alumina blasting particles. 12 surfaces presented different degrees of inorganic pollutions, and 2 presented a severe organic pollution overcoat. Only 2 surfaces presented no pollution (Osseospeed and Ossean). FROM A MORPHOLOGICAL STANDPOINT, 2 surfaces were microporous (anodization) and 12 microrough, with different microtopographical aspects and values.

 

10 surfaces were smooth on the nanoscale, and therefore presented no significant and repetitive nanostructures. 4 implants were nanomodified: 2 implants were nanorough (Osseospeed and Ossean), and 2 were covered with nanoparticles (NanoTite and SLActive). TiUnite and Kohno HRPS were covered with extended cracks all over the surface. Only 8 surfaces could be considered as homogeneous.This systematic approach allowed to gather the main characteristics of these commercially available products in a single ID card.

 

Keywords: Dental implant, nanostructure, osseointegration, surface properties, titanium.

 

Keywords: Dental implant, nanostructure, osseointegration, surface properties, titanium.

Publications 2015: