There is still controversy as to the optimal features for implant surfaces regarding osseointegration kinetics. Direct bone apposition onto the conditioning film-coated surface of the titanium is critical. Surface composition, hydrophilicity, Critical Surface Tension and roughness are parameters that may play a role in the implant-tissue interaction. Guehnnec et al. (2007) reviewed the different methods used for applying osteoconductive coatings and increasing surface roughness to titanium dental implants (such as titanium plasma-spraying, grit-blasting, acid-etching, anodization or calcium phosphate coatings) and their surface characterization and topographies were described. They showed that the development of these surface treatments required
…show more content…
Many surface modifications have been suggested to provide the titanium surface with bioactive bone-bonding ability. Elias CN (2010) tried to lower the waiting time required for loading of an implant and improve tissue reaction towards the titanium implant, by modifying the surface of cpTi implants and disks with one of two ways: acid etching and electrochemical treatment (anodization). He used scanning electron microscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, thin-film X-ray diffraction and optical laser profilometry to check surface morphology, composition, crystal structure and surface roughness, respectively. Elias found out that both anodized and acid-etched dental implants induced bone growth, but the removal force required to unscrew the implant for anodized dental implants was greater than for the acid-etched implants. He concluded that surface irregularity, morphology, structure and chemical composition were influenced by the treatment method used, and thus, had different outcomes on the process of …show more content…
(2011), they attempted to facilitate the scientific communication in the field of dental implant systems. They claimed that although dental implants are commonly used in daily practice, most clinicians do not “really” know the properties of these biomedical devices they are placing in their patients. Ehrnfest et al. suggested a better coding system and established a clear and simple “identification card” for the different systems. He and his coworkers described the surface morphology as well as the surface chemistry for 14 different dental implant systems that are available on the market. They argued that each dental implant system should have its specific “ID card” for surface properties so that it could be easier and more convenient for the clinicians to pick the best reliable system. This ID contains, according to Dohan et al., information about the chemistry configuration, techniques used to modify – chemically or biomechanically – the surface, and the topography of each dental implant system used. This work could be used as an experimental method to control industrial implant productions, and could be an “interesting basis” for the expansion of simple and clear International Standards Organization Designation System (ISO System) for dental implant surfaces and other implantable
Many surface modifications have been suggested to provide the titanium surface with bioactive bone-bonding ability. Elias CN (2010) tried to lower the waiting time required for loading of an implant and improve tissue reaction towards the titanium implant, by modifying the surface of cpTi implants and disks with one of two ways: acid etching and electrochemical treatment (anodization). He used scanning electron microscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, thin-film X-ray diffraction and optical laser profilometry to check surface morphology, composition, crystal structure and surface roughness, respectively. Elias found out that both anodized and acid-etched dental implants induced bone growth, but the removal force required to unscrew the implant for anodized dental implants was greater than for the acid-etched implants. He concluded that surface irregularity, morphology, structure and chemical composition were influenced by the treatment method used, and thus, had different outcomes on the process of …show more content…
(2011), they attempted to facilitate the scientific communication in the field of dental implant systems. They claimed that although dental implants are commonly used in daily practice, most clinicians do not “really” know the properties of these biomedical devices they are placing in their patients. Ehrnfest et al. suggested a better coding system and established a clear and simple “identification card” for the different systems. He and his coworkers described the surface morphology as well as the surface chemistry for 14 different dental implant systems that are available on the market. They argued that each dental implant system should have its specific “ID card” for surface properties so that it could be easier and more convenient for the clinicians to pick the best reliable system. This ID contains, according to Dohan et al., information about the chemistry configuration, techniques used to modify – chemically or biomechanically – the surface, and the topography of each dental implant system used. This work could be used as an experimental method to control industrial implant productions, and could be an “interesting basis” for the expansion of simple and clear International Standards Organization Designation System (ISO System) for dental implant surfaces and other implantable