Affiliation:
1. Faculty of Medicine Dentistry and Oral Surgery University of Tripoli Tripoli Libya
2. Prosthodontic Department School of Dentistry The University of Jordan, Consultant in Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics The University of Jordan Hospital Amman Jordan
3. Division of Dentistry School of Medical Sciences The University of Manchester Manchester UK
4. School of Dentistry The University of Manchester Manchester UK
5. College of Dental Medicine QU Health Qatar University Doha Qatar
Abstract
AbstractPurposeBioceramic coatings have been shown to promote bone repair, which aids in the early integration of implants. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of air abrasion with a bioceramic abrasive on the surface characteristics of different implant materials and surfaces. The dissolution of the applied treatment from the surfaces over 3 weeks was also assessed.Materials and MethodsDiscs of three alloys used for dental implants were studied and compared: two types of commercially pure titanium (CpTi)/ (CpTi SLActive) and titanium‐zirconia (TiZr). The tested surfaces were: CpTi control (CpC), sandblasted (SB), sandblasted and acid‐etched (SBE), and CpTi SLActive®, (TiZr) Roxolid®. Three discs from each group underwent air abrasion with apatite bioceramic powders, 95% hydroxyapatite (HA)/5% calcium oxide (CaO), and 90% hydroxyapatite (HA)/10% calcium oxide (CaO). The treated discs were surface characterized by optical profilometry to obtain surface roughness, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and energy dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy (EDS) to compare element weight percentages of titanium, calcium, and phosphate. Dissolution was assessed using inductively coupled plasma optic emission spectrometry (ICP‐OES).ResultsBioceramic powders were deposited on all tested surfaces leading to changes in surface characteristics. The only statistically significant differences between the material groups for surface roughness were found with 95% HA/5% CaO powder in the Sp and Rp parameters (p = 0.03 and 0.04, respectively). There were no significant differences in the Ca and P wt% between all groups and powders 95% HA/5% CaO and 90% HA/10% CaO (p = 0.14, 0.18, and p = 0.15, 0.12, respectively). A non‐uniform dispersion of the treatment on the surface layer was visible on all treated surfaces. The bioceramic powder continued to dissolute from the tested surfaces for 3 weeks.ConclusionBioceramic abrasion modifies implant surface characteristics, although the change in surface characteristics resulting from such treatment was not influenced by the implant material or surface treatment. Air abrasion with hydroxyapatite and calcium oxide bioceramics leaves powder deposits on the treated implant surfaces that could potentially influence the healing of implants affected by peri‐implantitis.
Reference47 articles.
1. Rationale for dental implants
2. Dental Implants
3. Trends in Dental Implant Use in the U.S., 1999–2016, and Projections to 2026
4. Current interpretations of the osseointegrated response: clinical significance;Albrektsson T;Int J Prosthodont.,1993
5. BalloAM OmarO XiaW PalmquistA.Dental implant surfaces‐Physicochemical properties biological performance and trends. Implant Dentistry‐A Rapidly Evolving Practice;1:19‐56
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献