Elsevier

Biomaterials

Volume 29, Issue 28, October 2008, Pages 3822-3835
Biomaterials

Review
Advancing dental implant surface technology – From micron- to nanotopography

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.05.012Get rights and content

Abstract

Current trends in clinical dental implant therapy include use of endosseous dental implant surfaces embellished with nanoscale topographies. The goal of this review is to consider the role of nanoscale topographic modification of titanium substrates for the purpose of improving osseointegration. Nanotechnology offers engineers and biologists new ways of interacting with relevant biological processes. Moreover, nanotechnology has provided means of understanding and achieving cell specific functions. The various techniques that can impart nanoscale topographic features to titanium endosseous implants are described. Existing data supporting the role of nanotopography suggest that critical steps in osseointegration can be modulated by nanoscale modification of the implant surface. Important distinctions between nanoscale and micron-scale modification of the implant surface are presently considered. The advantages and disadvantages of nanoscale modification of the dental implant surface are discussed. Finally, available data concerning the current dental implant surfaces that utilize nanotopography in clinical dentistry are described. Nanoscale modification of titanium endosseous implant surfaces can alter cellular and tissue responses that may benefit osseointegration and dental implant therapy.

Introduction

Current dental implant success has evolved from modest results of the middle of the past century. Beginning in the late 1960s the focused efforts of PI Branemark led to the detailed microscopic characterization of interfacial bone formation at machined titanium endosseous implants [1], [2]. These concepts of osseointegration focused the profession on a proscribed surgical technique and the biocompatible nature of the machined titanium surface. Bone formation at the endosseous implant surface was considered a positive outcome that was contrasted to fibrous encapsulation, a negative and undesired result [3]. The main clinical advantage of osseointegration was the predictable clinical result that occurred when an osseous interface was reproducibly formed and maintained at the titanium surface of load bearing dental implants [4].

Over two decades later, osseointegration is widely accepted in clinical dentistry as the basis for dental implant success. The low rate of implant failure in dense bone of the parasymphyseal mandible [5], [6], [7], [8] has not been fully recapitulated by subsequent data from studies involving more challenging clinical situations [9], [10]. Anecdotal reports of difficulty in achieving high rates of implant success in selected patient populations (e.g. smokers and diabetics) were supported by initial reports [11], [12], [13]. The cause of these failures, while not precisely determined, was largely attributed to a failure in bone formation in support of osseointegration. Challenging osseointegration with new protocols such as immediate placement and immediate loading may require further control of bone formation and osseointegration [9].

Failure to achieve osseointegration at a high rate can be attributed to one or more implant, local anatomic, local biologic, systemic or functional factors [5], [8]. Clinical control of all of these factors is represented by multidisciplinary treatment planning procedures. While it is presently acknowledged that these, as well as clinician-related factors, are important determinants of endosseous implants success, a major interest in implant design factors is evident and clinical efforts to improve implant success have been focused on increasing the amount of bone that forms at the endosseous implant surface.

Implant surface character is one implant design factor affecting the rate and extent of osseointegration [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. The process of osseointegration is now well described both histologically and at the cellular level. The adhesion of a fibrin blood clot and the population of the implant surface by blood-derived cells and mesenchymal stem cells is orchestrated in a manner that results in osteoid formation and its subsequent mineralization [19], [20], [21]. A seamless progression of changing cell populations and elaboration and modification of the tissue/implant interface eventually results in bone forming in direct contact with the implant surface. Precisely how much of the implant surface directly contacts bone, how rapidly this bone accrual occurs, and the mechanical nature of the bone/implant connection is influenced by the nature of the implant surface itself [22].

The character of the implant surface is implicated in this complex process of osseointegration in a number of different ways. Early investigations revealed the biocompatible nature of the cpTitanium implant [23], and revealed some pragmatic advantages for cpTitanium over other suitable materials [24]. Molecular investigations have contributed to defining cellular responses to titanium as “compatible” and advantageous. For example, Suska and colleagues [25] showed relatively low inflammatory signaling within cells in tissues adjacent to cpTitanium implants and suggested that this is a part of the osseointegration process. During the first 10–20 years of applied endosseous implant experience, the concept that cpTitanium implant biocompatibility supported clinical osseointegration success dominated clinical thinking. Subsequently, experiments with surface topography encouraged new considerations of improvements in bone formation at the implant surface.

Section snippets

Micron-scale surface topography

The significance of micron-scale topography was highlighted in an important report by Buser and colleagues [26] that compared various surface preparations of cpTitanium to an electropolished surface negative control and a hydroxyapatite coated positive control group. The observation that a micron-scale rough surface prepared by grit blasting and subsequent acid etching was capable of rapid and increased bone accrual reiterated an earlier report that a TiO2 grit blasted surface also supported

Nanotechnology and surface science

Nanotechnology has been defined as “the creation of functional materials, devices and systems through control of matter on the nanometer length scale (1–100 nm), and exploitation of novel phenomena and properties (physical, chemical, and biological) at that length scale” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). Nanotechnology involves materials that have a nano-sized topography or are composed of nano-sized materials. These materials have a size range between 1 and 100 nm (10−9 m) (Fig. 1

Biomimetics and nanotechnology

The recapitulation of natural cellular environments can be achieved at the nanoscale. Nanoscale modification of an implant surface could contribute to the mimicry of cellular environments to favor the process of rapid bone accrual. For example, cell adhesion to basement membranes is an often cited example of nanoscale biomimetics. The structure of the epithelial basement membrane contains pores approximating 70–100 nm [91]. It is suggested that the surface roughness of bone is approximately 32 nm

Nanotopography alters cellular responses

Surface nanotopography appears to affect cell interactions at surfaces and alter cell behavior when compared to conventional sized topography (Fig. 3) [97], [98], [99]. Different physical relationships exist between cells and nano- vs cell and micron-scale surface features. Nanotopography specific effects on cellular behavior have been demonstrated using a wide range of different cell types including epithelial cells, fibroblasts, myocytes and osteoblasts. Nanostructured surfaces possess unique

Nanotechnology alters surface reactivity

Nanoscale modification of the implant surface may alter the endosseous implants surface reactivity. Existing reports suggest that little bone bonding occurs at endosseous titanium implants, particularly during the early phases of bone formation [150]. Nanoscale modifications of topography appear to change the chemical reactivity of bulk materials [151]. Ellingsen [152] demonstrated that the calcium phosphate precipitation on grit blasted titanium was dramatically altered by HF surface treatment

The relative value of nanoscale and micron-scale roughness

The development of an implant/bone interface may be influenced by both nanoscale and micron-scale parameters of topography. The role of surface parameters (both bulk chemistry and topography) requires consideration of molecular (ionic and biomolecular) interactions with the surface, cell adhesion phenomenon and local biomechanical features of the established interface. It is clear that nanoscale modification will affect the chemical reactivity of an endosseous implant surface and alter the

Nanostructured surfaces for implant dentistry

There are many different methods to impart nanoscale features to the implant surface (see Table 1). Several of these methods have already been used to modify implants available commercially. Others are advancing through the research and development process.

As indicated above, positive bone responses occur at nanostructured surfaces tested in vitro and in vivo. Presently, only a few nanoscale surface topography modifications have been used to enhance bone responses at clinical dental implants.

Conclusions

Nanoscale modification can alter the chemistry and/or topography of the implant surface. Different methods have been described to modify or to embellish titanium substrates with nanoscale features. Such changes alter the implant surface interaction with ions, biomolecules and cells. These interactions can favorably influence molecular and cellular activities and alter the process of osseointegration. Cell culture studies reveal that there exists a range of nanoscale topography that promotes the

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) and CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico), and UNC-Astra Tech contributions to this article by fellowship.

References (158)

  • J.Y. Park et al.

    Platelet interactions with titanium: modulation of platelet activity by surface topography

    Biomaterials

    (2001)
  • A. Abron et al.

    Evaluation of a predictive model for implant surface topography effects on early osseointegration in the rat tibia model

    J Prosthet Dent

    (2001)
  • L.G. Gutwein et al.

    Increased viable osteoblast density in the presence of nanophase compared to conventional alumina and titania particles

    Biomaterials

    (2004)
  • S.H. Oh et al.

    Growth of nano-scale hydroxyapatite using chemically treated titanium oxide nanotubes

    Biomaterials

    (2005)
  • T.J. Webster et al.

    Osteoblast adhesion on nanophase ceramics

    Biomaterials

    (1999)
  • T.J. Webster et al.

    Enhanced functions of osteoblasts on nanophase ceramics

    Biomaterials

    (2000)
  • T.J. Webster et al.

    Increased osteoblast adhesion on nanophase metals: Ti, Ti6Al4V, and CoCrMo

    Biomaterials

    (2004)
  • T.J. Webster et al.

    Increased osteoblast functions on theta + delta nanofiber alumina

    Biomaterials

    (2005)
  • L. Wang et al.

    Integrin beta1 silencing in osteoblasts alters substrate-dependent responses to 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D3

    Biomaterials

    (2006)
  • H.M. Kim et al.

    Bioactive macroporous titanium surface layer on titanium substrate

    J Biomed Mater Res

    (2000)
  • M. Uchida et al.

    Apatite formation on zirconium metal treated with aqueous NaOH

    Biomaterials

    (2002)
  • X.X. Wang et al.

    Bioactive titania-gel layers formed by chemical treatment of Ti substrate with a H2O2/HCl solution

    Biomaterials

    (2002)
  • L.F. Cooper et al.

    Fluoride modification effects on osteoblast behavior and bone formation at TiO2 grit blasted c.p. titanium endosseous implants

    Biomaterials

    (2006)
  • J. Guo et al.

    Modification of TiO2 grit blasted titanium implants by hydrofluoric acid treatment alters adherent osteoblast gene expression in vitro and in vivo

    Biomaterials

    (2007)
  • D.M. Liu et al.

    Water-based sol–gel synthesis of hydroxyapatite: process development

    Biomaterials

    (2001)
  • H.W. Kim et al.

    Hydroxyapatite coating on titanium substrate with titania buffer layer processed by sol–gel method

    Biomaterials

    (2004)
  • L.D. Piveteau et al.

    Evaluating mechanical adhesion of sol–gel titanium dioxide coatings containing calcium phosphate for metal implant application

    Biomaterials

    (2000)
  • J.L. Arias et al.

    Micro- and nano-testing of calcium phosphate coatings produced by pulsed laser deposition

    Biomaterials

    (2003)
  • V.C. Mendes et al.

    The effect of discrete calcium phosphate nanocrystals on bone-bonding to titanium surfaces

    Biomaterials

    (2007)
  • J.C. Hansen et al.

    Effect of surface nanoscale topography on elastic modulus of individual osteoblastic cells as determined by atomic force microscopy

    J Biomech

    (2007)
  • J.Y. Lim et al.

    The regulation of integrin-mediated osteoblast focal adhesion and focal adhesion kinase expression by nanoscale topography

    Biomaterials

    (2007)
  • M.I. Baraton et al.

    FTIR study of nanostructured alumina nitride powder surface: determination of the acidic/basic sites by CO, CO2, and acetic acid adsorptions

    Nanostruct Mater

    (1997)
  • H. Zreiqat et al.

    The effect of surface chemistry modification of titanium alloy on signalling pathways in human osteoblasts

    Biomaterials

    (2005)
  • P.I. Branemark et al.

    Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies

    Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg

    (1969)
  • L. Linder et al.

    Electron microscopic analysis of the bone–titanium interface

    Acta Orthop Scand

    (1983)
  • T. Albrektsson et al.

    Direct bone anchorage of oral implants: clinical and experimental considerations of the concept of osseointegration

    Int J Prosthodont

    (1990)
  • R. Adell et al.

    Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws

    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

    (1990)
  • T. Albrektsson et al.

    Osseointegrated oral implants. A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted Nobelpharma implants

    J Periodontol

    (1988)
  • D. Morton et al.

    Immediate restoration and loading of dental implants: clinical considerations and protocols

    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

    (2004)
  • L. Tolstunov

    Dental implant success–failure analysis: a concept of implant vulnerability

    Implant Dent

    (2006)
  • R.A. Jaffin et al.

    The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis

    J Periodontol

    (1991)
  • C.A. Bain

    Smoking and implant failure–benefits of a smoking cessation protocol

    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

    (1996)
  • J.P. Fiorellini et al.

    A retrospective study of dental implants in diabetic patients

    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent

    (2000)
  • A. Nanci et al.

    Chemical modification of titanium surfaces for covalent attachment of biological molecules

    J Biomed Mater Res

    (1998)
  • B.D. Boyan et al.

    Response of bone and cartilage cells to biomaterials in vivo and in vitro

    J Oral Implantol

    (1993)
  • Z. Schwartz et al.

    Modulation of matrix vesicle enzyme activity and phosphatidylserine content by ceramic implant materials during endosteal bone healing

    Calcif Tissue Int

    (1992)
  • C.M. Stanford et al.

    Outcomes of a fluoride modified implant one year after loading in the posterior-maxilla when placed with the osteotome surgical technique

    Appl Osseointegration Res

    (2006)
  • T. Masuda et al.

    Cell and matrix reactions at titanium implants in surgically prepared rat tibiae

    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

    (1997)
  • T. Berglundh et al.

    De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants

    Clin Oral Implants Res

    (2003)
  • C.B. Johansson et al.

    A removal torque and histomorphometric study of commercially pure niobium and titanium implants in rabbit bone

    Clin Oral Implants Res

    (1991)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text