Classification of osseointegrated implant surfaces: Materials, chemistry and topography

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 198-206

  Dohan Ehrenfest, David M ^a   Coelho, Paulo G ^b   Kang, Byung Soo ^a   Sul, Young Taeg ^a   Albrektsson, Tomas ^a  

^a SAHLGRENSKA ACADEMY AT UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL COMPOSITIONS; CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM; CORE MATERIAL; FRACTAL ARCHITECTURE; IMPLANT SURFACE; MICRO-ROUGHNESS; NANO SCALE; NANOPATTERNING; NANOROUGHNESS; ORTHOPAEDIC IMPLANTS; OSSEOINTEGRATION; SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS; SURFACE FEATURE;

CHEMICAL MODIFICATION; COREMAKING; DENTAL PROSTHESES; SURFACES; TITANIUM;

SURFACE CHEMISTRY;

NANOPARTICLE; NANOTUBE; TITANIUM;

ANALYTIC METHOD; BONE REGENERATION; CHEMICAL COMPOSITION; CHEMICAL MODIFICATION; CHEMICAL PROCEDURES; CLASSIFICATION; IMPLANT; MATERIAL COATING; NANOANALYSIS; NOMENCLATURE; ORTHOPEDIC PROSTHESIS; POROSITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STANDARDIZATION; SURFACE PROPERTY; TOOTH IMPLANTATION;

BONE SUBSTITUTES; COATED MATERIALS, BIOCOMPATIBLE; HUMANS; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS;

EID: 77949654189     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2009.12.003     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Albrektsson T., et al. State of the art of oral implants. Periodontol 2000 2008, 47:15-26.
2. Coelho P.G., et al. Basic research methods and current trends of dental implant surfaces. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2009, 88:579-596.
3. Wazen J.J., et al. Osseointegration timing for Baha system loading. Laryngoscope 2007, 117:794-796.
4. Downing M., et al. A bone-anchored percutaneous connector system for neural prosthetic applications. Ear Nose Throat J. 1997, 76:328-332.
5. Albrektsson T., et al. Gothenburg osseointegrated hip arthroplasty. Experience with a novel type of hip design. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1998, 352:81-94.
6. Carlsson L., et al. Osseointegration of titanium implants. Acta Orthop. Scand. 1986, 57:285-289.
7. Carlsson L.V., et al. Stepwise introduction of a bone-conserving osseointegrated hip arthroplasty using RSA and a randomized study: I. Preliminary investigations-52 patients followed for 3 years. Acta Orthop. 2006, 77:549-558.
8. Carlsson L.V., et al. Stepwise introduction of a bone-conserving osseointegrated hip arthroplasty using RSA and a randomized study: II. Clinical proof of concept-40 patients followed for 2 years. Acta Orthop. 2006, 77:559-566.
9. Sundfeldt M., et al. Long-term results of a cementless knee prosthesis with a metal-backed patellar component: clinical and radiological follow-up with histology from retrieved components. J. Long Term Eff. Med. Implants 2003, 13:341-354.
10. Palmquist A., et al. Forearm bone-anchored amputation prosthesis: a case study on the osseointegration. Acta Orthop. 2008, 79:78-85.
11. Albrektsson T., Johansson C. Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration. Eur. Spine J. 2001, 10(Suppl 2):S96-101.
12. Albrektsson T., Zarb G.A. Current interpretations of the osseointegrated response: clinical significance. Int. J. Prosthodont. 1993, 6:95-105.
13. Mouhyi, J. et al. (2009) The Peri-implantitis: implant surfaces, microstructure and physico-chemical aspects. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. (in press).
14. Wenz H.J., et al. Osseointegration and clinical success of zirconia dental implants: a systematic review. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2008, 21:27-36.
15. Albrektsson T., Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 1-review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2004, 17:536-543.
16. Albrektsson T., Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 2-review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surfaces. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2004, 17:544-564.
17. Puleo D.A., Nanci A. Understanding and controlling the bone-implant interface. Biomaterials 1999, 20:2311-2321.
18. Morra M. Biomolecular modification of implant surfaces. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 2007, 4:361-372.
19. Morra M., et al. Collagen I-coated titanium surfaces: mesenchymal cell adhesion and in vivo evaluation in trabecular bone implants. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2006, 78:449-458.
20. Morra M., et al. Covalently-linked hyaluronan promotes bone formation around Ti implants in a rabbit model. J. Orthop. Res. 2009, 27:657-663.
21. Bussy C., et al. Modulating in vitro bone cell and macrophage behavior by immobilized enzymatically tailored pectins. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2008, 86:597-606.
22. Morra M. Biochemical modification of titanium surfaces: peptides and ECM proteins. Eur. Cell Mater. 2006, 12:1-15.
23. Wennerberg, A. and Albrektsson, T. (2010) A review of current knowledge, opinions and suggestions for possible common mechanisms behind the increased bone response reported to different types of modern oral implant surfaces. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. (in press).
24. Sul Y.T., et al. Which surface properties enhance bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, TiUnite, and Osseotite implant surfaces. Int. J. Prosthodont 2006, 19:319-328.
25. Sul Y.T., et al. The bone response of oxidized bioactive and non-bioactive titanium implants. Biomaterials 2005, 26:6720-6730.
26. Sul Y.T., et al. The roles of surface chemistry and topography in the strength and rate of osseointegration of titanium implants in bone. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2009, 89:942-950.
27. Sul Y.T., et al. The electrochemical oxide growth behaviour on titanium in acid and alkaline electrolytes. Med. Eng. Phys. 2001, 23:329-346.
28. Sul Y.T., et al. 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.
29. Sul Y.T., et al. Qualitative and quantitative observations of bone tissue reactions to anodised implants. Biomaterials 2002, 23:1809-1817.
30. Yang Y., et al. A review on calcium phosphate coatings produced using a sputtering process--an alternative to plasma spraying. Biomaterials 2005, 26:327-337.
31. Granato R., et al. Biomechanical and histomorphometric evaluation of a thin ion beam bioceramic deposition on plateau root form implants: an experimental study in dogs. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2009, 90:396-403.
32. Coelho P.G., Lemons J.E. Physico/chemical characterization and in vivo evaluation of nanothickness bioceramic depositions on alumina-blasted/acid-etched Ti-6Al-4V implant surfaces. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2009, 90:351-361.
33. Mendes V.C., et al. Discrete calcium phosphate nanocrystalline deposition enhances osteoconduction on titanium-based implant surfaces. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2009, 90:577-585.
34. Bucci-Sabattini, V. et al. (2009) Effect of titanium implant surface nanoroughness and calcium phosphate low impregnation on bone cell activity in vitro. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. (in press).
35. Kang B.S., et al. XPS, AES and SEM analysis of recent dental implants. Acta Biomater. 2009, 5:2222-2229.
36. Marin C., et al. Removal torque and histomorphometric evaluation of bioceramic grit-blasted/acid-etched and dual acid-etched implant surfaces: an experimental study in dogs. J. Periodontol. 2008, 79:1942-1949.
37. Jarmar T., et al. Characterization of the surface properties of commercially available dental implants using scanning electron microscopy, focused ion beam, and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2008, 10:11-22.
38. Sul Y.T., et al. Surface characteristics of electrochemically oxidized implants and acid-etched implants: surface chemistry, morphology, pore configurations, oxide thickness, crystal structure, and roughness. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2008, 23:631-640.
39. Morra M., et al. Surface chemistry effects of topographic modification of titanium dental implant surfaces: 1. Surface analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2003, 18:40-45.
40. Coelho P.G., et al. Early healing of nanothickness bioceramic coatings on dental implants. An experimental study in dogs. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater 2009, 88:387-393.
41. Sawase T., et al. A novel characteristic of porous titanium oxide implants. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2007, 18:680-685.
42. He J., et al. The anatase phase of nanotopography titania plays an important role on osteoblast cell morphology and proliferation. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2008, 19:3465-3472.
43. Sollazzo V., et al. Anatase coating improves implant osseointegration in vivo. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2007, 18:806-810.
44. Wennerberg A., Albrektsson T. Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2000, 15:331-344.
45. Bobyn J.D., et al. The optimum pore size for the fixation of porous-surfaced metal implants by the ingrowth of bone. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1980, 150:263-270.
46. Mendonca G., et al. Advancing dental implant surface technology-from micron- to nanotopography. Biomaterials 2008, 29:3822-3835.
47. Mendonca G., et al. The effects of implant surface nanoscale features on osteoblast-specific gene expression. Biomaterials 2009, 30:4053-4062.
48. Vetrone F., et al. Nanoscale oxidative patterning of metallic surfaces to modulate cell activity and fate. Nano. Lett. 2009, 9:659-665.
49. Dalby M.J., et al. Osteoprogenitor response to semi-ordered and random nanotopographies. Biomaterials 2006, 27:2980-2987.
50. Dalby M.J., et al. Osteoprogenitor response to defined topographies with nanoscale depths. Biomaterials 2006, 27:1306-1315.
51. Bjursten, L.M. et al. (2009) Titanium dioxide nanotubes enhance bone bonding in vivo. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. (in press).
52. Kodama A., et al. Bioactivation of titanium surfaces using coatings of TiO(2) nanotubes rapidly pre-loaded with synthetic hydroxyapatite. Acta Biomater. 2009, 5:2322-2330.
53. de Oliveira P.T., et al. Enhancement of in vitro osteogenesis on titanium by chemically produced nanotopography. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2007, 80:554-564.
54. Melin Svanborg L., et al. Surface characterization of commercial oral implants on the nanometer level. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2009, 92B:462-469.
55. Ma D., et al. Power-law scaling and fractal nature of medium-range order in metallic glasses. Nat. Mater. 2009, 8:30-34.
56. Brown J.H., et al. The fractal nature of nature: power laws, ecological complexity and biodiversity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2002, 357:619-626.
57. Wennerberg A., Albrektsson T. Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2009, 20(Suppl 4):172-184.
58. Sul Y.T. The significance of the surface properties of oxidized titanium to the bone response: special emphasis on potential biochemical bonding of oxidized titanium implant. Biomaterials 2003, 24:3893-3907.
59. Lamolle S.F., et al. The effect of hydrofluoric acid treatment of titanium surface on nanostructural and chemical changes and the growth of MC3T3-E1 cells. Biomaterials 2009, 30:736-742.
60. Monjo M., et al. In vivo expression of osteogenic markers and bone mineral density at the surface of fluoride-modified titanium implants. Biomaterials 2008, 29:3771-3780.
61. Cassinelli C., et al. Surface chemistry effects of topographic modification of titanium dental implant surfaces: 2. In vitro experiments. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2003, 18:46-52.
62. Decuzzi P., Ferrari M. Modulating cellular adhesion through nanotopography. Biomaterials 2010, 31:173-179.
63. Lovmand J., et al. The use of combinatorial topographical libraries for the screening of enhanced osteogenic expression and mineralization. Biomaterials 2009, 30:2015-2022.