Evaluation of anti-inflammatory properties on the surface of dental implants depending on the type of processing (Part 1)

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14739/2310-1237.2024.1.296397

Keywords:

titanium, dental implantation surface treatment, peri-implantitis, stability factor, maxillofacial area, surgical treatment

Abstract

The aim. To study of the anti-inflammatory properties of the surface of commercial dental implants with different processing methods using the example of the course of the first stage of implantation.

Materials and methods. Dental implants made of titanium with 3D Active and Xpeed surface treatment were used. The surface microstructure and biocompatibility of the samples, surface corrosion, elemental analysis of the surface was studied. The assessment of the severity of peri-implantitis and mucositis based on the depth of the peri-implant pocket and bleeding during probing, determination of the coefficient of stability of implants (KSI) is given. Median test (χ2), Kruskel–Wallis test (H), univariate variance analysis (F) were used for multiple comparison of samples. The difference in parameters was considered statistically significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level.

Results. The surfaces of 3D Active implants are monolithic with rounded pores in the form of wells of different diameters and depths; the upper layer of the Xpeed sample consists of closely adjacent to each other fragments of a rectangular or polygonal shape, in the form of tiles, leaving rectangular faces on the outside. On the surface of the 3D Active samples, in addition to oxygen and carbon, there was phosphorus – 5.04 wt%, as well as S, Ca, Na, Zr, Zn which weight percentage did not exceed 1 wt%. A significant difference in the elemental composition of Xpeed implants was the presence of chlorine 0.07 wt% and 0.93 wt%, silicon – 0.10 wt% and 0.14 wt%, aluminum 0.06 wt% and 0.23 wt%, respectively, with the latter has a significant advantage in these elements. Xpeed had an insignificant weight percentage of iron in its composition – 0.12 wt%.

The assessment of cell adhesion to the surface of the samples on the first day of incubation demonstrated that the samples with the Xpeed and 3D Active surfaces did not have a statistically significant difference between them. Also, on the 7th day of incubation, the level of reduction of resazurin in Xpeed was lower, no significant difference was observed (p > 0.05).

The clinical signs of bone tissue resorption were identified in 36.4 % of 3D Active implants and 60.0 % of Xpeed implants (p = 0.3); inflammation of the mucous membrane – in the areas of installation of 54.5 % of 3D Active implants. No signs of mucositis were detected around the Xpeed implants (p = 0.23). 9.1 % of 3D Active implants were “lost”; no cases of loss of Xpeed implants have been identified. The KSI of 3D Active – 64.0 ± 5.9 units, Xpeed – 65.1 ± 3.7 units.

Conclusions. According to KSI indicators, titanium implants with Xpeed coating (65.1 ± 3.7 units) and 3D Active (64.0 ± 5.9 units) showed the same capabilities. Bone tissue resorption without signs of inflammation is more common around Xpeed-coated implants than 3D Active-coated implants. Clinical signs of inflammation are more frequent and more severe around implants with a 3D Active coating, which affected both the severity of the course of the first stage of implantation and its results. Xpeed-coated implants are more reliable than 3D Active: loss among 3D Active implants was 9.1 %, Xpeed – 0.0 %.

Author Biographies

S. D. Varzhapetian, Zaporizhzhia State Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Ukraine

MD, PhD, DSc, Associate Professor of the Department of Therapeutic, Orthopedic and Pediatric Dentistry

M. A. Shyshkin, Zaporizhzhia State Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Ukraine

MD, PhD, DSc, Associate Professor of the Department of Pathological Anatomy and Forensic Medicine

T. V. Strogonova, Zaporizhzhia State Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Ukraine

PhD, Associate Professor of the Department of Department of Medical Physics, Biophysics, and Further Mathematics

References

  1. Minetti E, Gianfreda F, Palermo A, Bollero P. Autogenous Dentin Particulate Graft for Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with and without Use of Collagen Membrane: Preliminary Histological Analysis on Humans. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(12):4319. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15124319
  2. Rokaya D, Srimaneepong V, Wisitrasameewon W, Humagain M, Thunyakitpisal P. Peri-implantitis Update: Risk Indicators, Diagnosis, and Treatment. Eur J Dent. 2020;14(4):672-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1715779
  3. Schwarz F, Ramanauskaite A. It is all about peri-implant tissue health. Periodontol 2000. 2022;88(1):9-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12407
  4. Boccia G, Di Spirito F, D'Ambrosio F, Di Palo MP, Giordano F, Amato M. Local and Systemic Antibiotics in Peri-Implantitis Management: An Umbrella Review. Antibiotics (Basel). 2023;12(1):114. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12010114
  5. Lorusso F, Conte R, Inchingolo F, Festa F, Scarano A. Survival Rate of Zygomatic Implants for Fixed Oral Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes between Zygomatic and Regular Implants. Dent J (Basel). 2021;9(4):38. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/dj9040038
  6. Kligman S, Ren Z, Chung CH, Perillo MA, Chang YC, Koo H, et al. The Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration and Biofilm Formation. J Clin Med. 2021;10(8):1641. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10081641
  7. Williams JC, Boyer RR. Opportunities and issues in the application of titanium alloys for aerospace components. Metals. 2020;10(6):705. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/met10060705
  8. Esteves GM, Esteves J, Resende M, Mendes L, Azevedo AS. Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Coating of Dental Implants-Past and New Perspectives. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11(2):235. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11020235
  9. Tardelli JD, Bagnato VS, Reis AC. Bacterial Adhesion Strength on Titanium Surfaces Quantified by Atomic Force Microscopy: A Systematic Review. Antibiotics (Basel). 2023;12(6):994. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12060994
  10. Tepla T, Pleshakov E, Sieniawski J, Bohun L. Causes of degradation of titanium dental implants. Ukrainian Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science. (2022);8(4):31-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.23939/ujmems2022.04.031
  11. Kormas I, Pedercini C, Pedercini A, Raptopoulos M, Alassy H, Wolff LF. Peri-Implant Diseases: Diagnosis, Clinical, Histological, Microbiological Characteristics and Treatment Strategies. A Narrative Review. Antibiotics (Basel). 2020;9(11):835. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9110835
  12. Hakim LK, Yazdanian M, Alam M, Abbasi K, Tebyaniyan H, Tahmasebi E, et al. Biocompatible and Biomaterials Application in Drug Delivery System in Oral Cavity. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2021;2021:9011226. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9011226
  13. Benea L, Bounegru I, Forray A, Axente ER, Buruiana DL. Preclinical EIS Study of the Inflammatory Response Evolution of Pure Titanium Implant in Hank's Biological Solution. Molecules. 2023;28(12):4837. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28124837
  14. Eftekhar Ashtiani R, Alam M, Tavakolizadeh S, Abbasi K. The Role of Biomaterials and Biocompatible Materials in Implant-Supported Dental Prosthesis. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2021;2021:3349433. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3349433
  15. Scarano A, Khater AG, Gehrke SA, Serra P, Francesco I, Di Carmine M, et al. Current Status of Peri-Implant Diseases: A Clinical Review for Evidence-Based Decision Making. J Funct Biomater. 2023;14(4):210. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14040210
  16. Nimmawitt P, Aliyu AA, Lohwongwatana B, Arunjaroensuk S, Puncreobutr C, Mattheos N, et al. Understanding the Stress Distribution on Anatomic Customized Root-Analog Dental Implant at Bone-Implant Interface for Different Bone Densities. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(18):6379. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15186379
  17. Huang K, Wu T, Lou J, Wang B, Ding C, Gong Q, et al. Impact of bone-implant gap size on the interfacial osseointegration: an in vivo study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023;24(1):115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06215-1
  18. Jeon JH, Kim MJ, Yun PY, Jo DW, Kim YK. Randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two types of sandblasted with large-grit and acid-etched surface implants with different surface roughness. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;48(4):225-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2022.48.4.225
  19. Inchingolo AM, Malcangi G, Ferrante L, Del Vecchio G, Viapiano F, Inchingolo AD, et al. Surface Coatings of Dental Implants: A Review. J Funct Biomater. 2023;14(5):287. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14050287
  20. Stavropoulos A, Sandgren R, Bellon B, Sculean A, Pippenger BE. Greater Osseointegration Potential with Nanostructured Surfaces on TiZr: Accelerated vs. Real-Time Ageing. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(7):1678. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14071678
  21. Mavriqi L, Lorusso F, Tartaglia G, Inchingolo F, Scarano A. Transinusal Pathway Removal of an Impacted Third Molar with an Unusual Approach: A Case Report and a Systematic Review of the Literature. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11(5):658. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11050658
  22. Nicolas-Silvente AI, Velasco-Ortega E, Ortiz-Garcia I, Monsalve-Guil L, Gil J, Jimenez-Guerra A. Influence of the Titanium Implant Surface Treatment on the Surface Roughness and Chemical Composition. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(2):314. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13020314
  23. López-Valverde N, Aragoneses J, López-Valverde A, Rodríguez C, Macedo de Sousa B, Aragoneses JM. Role of chitosan in titanium coatings. trends and new generations of coatings. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:907589. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.907589
  24. Gil J, Pérez R, Herrero-Climent M, Rizo-Gorrita M, Torres-Lagares D, Gutierrez JL. Benefits of Residual Aluminum Oxide for Sand Blasting Titanium Dental Implants: Osseointegration and Bactericidal Effects. Materials (Basel). 2021;15(1):178. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010178

Downloads

Published

2024-04-22

How to Cite

1.
Varzhapetian SD, Shyshkin MA, Strogonova TV. Evaluation of anti-inflammatory properties on the surface of dental implants depending on the type of processing (Part 1). Pathologia [Internet]. 2024Apr.22 [cited 2026May22];21(1):14-22. Available from: https://pat.zsmu.edu.ua/article/view/296397

Issue

Vol. 21 No. 1 (2024)

Section

Original research

License

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Лицензия Creative Commons