Premium
Nanostructures and hydrophilicity influence osseointegration: a biomechanical study in the rabbit tibia
Author(s) -
Wennerberg Ann,
Jimbo Ryo,
Stübinger Stefan,
Obrecht Marcel,
Dard Michel,
Berner Simon
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12213
Subject(s) - osseointegration , nanostructure , wetting , materials science , contact angle , nano , nanotechnology , biomedical engineering , composite material , implant , surgery , medicine
Objective Implant surface properties have long been identified as an important factor to promote osseointegration. The importance of nanostructures and hydrophilicity has recently been discussed. The aim of this study was to investigate how nanostructures and wettability influence osseointegration and to identify whether the wettability, the nanostructure or both in combination play the key role in improved osseointegration. Materials and Methods Twenty‐six adult rabbits each received two T i grade 4 discs in each tibia. Four different types of surface modifications with different wettability and nanostructures were prepared: hydrophobic without nanostructures ( SLA ), with nanostructures ( SLA nano); hydrophilic with two different nanostructure densities (low density: pmod SLA , high density: SLA ctive). All four groups were intended to have similar chemistry and microroughness. The surfaces were evaluated with contact angle measurements, X ‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy and interferometry. After 4 and 8 weeks healing time, pull‐out tests were performed. Results SLA and SLA nano were hydrophobic, whereas SLA ctive and pmod SLA were super‐hydrophilic. No nanostructures were present on the SLA surface, but the three other surface modifications clearly showed the presence of nanostructures, although more sparsely distributed on pmod SLA . The hydrophobic samples showed higher carbon contamination levels compared with the hydrophilic samples. After 4 weeks healing time, SLA ctive implants showed the highest pull‐out values, with significantly higher pull‐out force than SLA and SLA nano. After 8 weeks, the SLA ctive implants had the highest pull‐out force, significantly higher than SLA nano and SLA . Conclusions The strongest bone response was achieved with a combination of wettability and the presence of nanostructures ( SLA ctive).