during processing, controlling such variables in order to determine their relative
effects in healing is a challenging task, and the largest direct comparison
between various surfaces in a suitable in vivo model is desirable. Thus, the
present study biomechanically and histomorphometrically evaluated the effect of
various surface modifications in an animal model.
Materials and Methods
The implants used in this study were Ti-6Al-4V screw type implants with 3.75 mm.
of diameter and 8 mm in length provided by the manufacturer (AB-Dental, Israel).
A total of 75 implants were used and divided in five groups according to surface
treatment: Alumina-Blasted, Biological Blasting, Plasma, Microblasted resorbable
blasting media (microblasted RBM), and Alumina-Blasted/Acid-Etched (AB/AE )
Three implants from each group were used for surface characterization.
Surface Characterization
The surface characterization was accomplished with three different methods:-
1.Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to observe the different groups’ surfaces
topography .
2. Optical interferometry (IFM)to determine the roughness parameters.
3. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) for the surface specific chemical assessment.
Results
The surface texture observed for both surfaces at intermediate and high magnification
levels, as well as the IFM reconstruction revealed morphologic differences between groups.
While similar morphology was observed for the alumina-blasted, microblasted RBM, and
AB/AE surfaces scanning electron micrographs showed that the biological blasting presented
rough regions from the grit-blasting procedure along with flat regions with the
original as-machined grooves.
The XPS spectra evaluated the presence of Al, P, Ca, N, Ti, C, V, O, and Na for
the different surfaces. The highest aluminum concentration
was observed for the alumina-blasting surface. The highest Ca and P
concentration was observed for the biological blasting surface, followed by the
microblasted RBM at much lower concentrations and all other surfaces without
the presence of these chemical elements.
The biomechanical testing results showed that the torque to interface failure of all implant
systems was the highest with the biological blasting surface, meaning that the surface was.
biocompatible and osseoconductive.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the biological blasted surface improves the host-to-implant
response thus decreasing the healing time and reducing treatment.
one and the implant, the Bioresorbable Blasting shortens healing time significantly.
