Surface characteristics of dental implants: A review
•Changes of paradigms about dental implant surfaces are highlighted.•Industrial and chair-side treatments enable surface decontamination and hydrophilization.•Implant’s surface characteristics at the time of surgical insertion are of clinical relevance.•Micro- and nanotopography as well as wettabili...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Dental materials 2018-01, Vol.34 (1), p.40-57 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 57 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 40 |
container_title | Dental materials |
container_volume | 34 |
creator | Rupp, F. Liang, L. Geis-Gerstorfer, J. Scheideler, L. Hüttig, F. |
description | •Changes of paradigms about dental implant surfaces are highlighted.•Industrial and chair-side treatments enable surface decontamination and hydrophilization.•Implant’s surface characteristics at the time of surgical insertion are of clinical relevance.•Micro- and nanotopography as well as wettability modulate the early bioresponse.•Advanced tailored implant surfaces will further optimize future hard and soft tissue interfaces.
During the last decades, several changes of paradigm have modified our view on how biomaterials’ surface characteristics influence the bioresponse. After becoming aware of the role of a certain microroughness for improved cellular contact and osseointegration of dental titanium implants, the likewise important role of surface energy and wettability was increasingly strengthened. Very recently, synergistic effects of nanoscaled topographical features and hydrophilicity at the implant/bone interface have been reported.
Questions arise about which surface roughness and wetting data are capable to predict the bioresponse and, ultimately, the clinical performance. Current methods and approaches applied for topographical, wetting and surface energetic analyses are highlighted. Current knowledge of possible mechanisms explaining the influence of roughness and hydrophilicity at the biological interface is presented.
Most marketed and experimental surfaces are based on commonly available additive or subtractive surface modifying methods such as blasting, etching or anodizing. Different height, spatial, hybrid and functional roughness parameters have been identified as possible candidates able to predict the outcome at hard and soft tissue interfaces. Likewise, hydrophilic implants have been proven to improve the initial blood contact, to support the wound healing and thereby accelerating the osseointegration.
There is clear relevance for the influence of topographical and wetting characteristics on a macromolecular and cellular level at endosseous implant/biosystem interfaces. However, we are still far away from designing sophisticated implant surfaces with the best possible, selective functionality for each specific tissue or cavity interface. Firstly, because our knowledge of the respective surface related reactions is at best fragmentary. Secondly, because manufacturing of multi-scaled complex surfaces including distinct nanotopographies, wetting properties, and stable cleanliness is still a technical challenge and far away from being rep |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.007 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1951415206</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0109564117307443</els_id><sourcerecordid>2029678231</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-c248f076a7df0ac8aa6d664b0a9adde64965aeae1dd236e51cd518b70a99b5e33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kD1PwzAQhi0EglL4BwhFYmFJOLu2EzMgVRVfUiUGYLYc-yJctU2xExD_HlcpDAxMN9xz7909hJxRKChQebUoHK47sywY0LIAVQCUe2REq1LlAKrcJyOgoHIhOT0ixzEuAIAzRQ_JEVPAVCVgRPhzHxpjMbNvJhjbYfCx8zZmbZMN-ZlfbZZm3cXrbJoF_PD4eUIOGrOMeLqrY_J6d_sye8jnT_ePs-k8t1zILreMVw2U0pSuAWMrY6STktdglHEOJVdSGDRInWMTiYJaJ2hVl6mvaoGTyZhcDrmb0L73GDu98tHiMp2DbR81VYJyKhjIhF78QRdtH9bpOs3Sr7Ks2IQmig-UDW2MARu9CX5lwpemoLdW9UIPX-utVQ1KJ6tp7HwX3tcrdL9DPxoTcDMAmGwkQ0FH63Ft0fmAttOu9f9v-AakMYk7</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2029678231</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Surface characteristics of dental implants: A review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Rupp, F. ; Liang, L. ; Geis-Gerstorfer, J. ; Scheideler, L. ; Hüttig, F.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rupp, F. ; Liang, L. ; Geis-Gerstorfer, J. ; Scheideler, L. ; Hüttig, F.</creatorcontrib><description>•Changes of paradigms about dental implant surfaces are highlighted.•Industrial and chair-side treatments enable surface decontamination and hydrophilization.•Implant’s surface characteristics at the time of surgical insertion are of clinical relevance.•Micro- and nanotopography as well as wettability modulate the early bioresponse.•Advanced tailored implant surfaces will further optimize future hard and soft tissue interfaces.
During the last decades, several changes of paradigm have modified our view on how biomaterials’ surface characteristics influence the bioresponse. After becoming aware of the role of a certain microroughness for improved cellular contact and osseointegration of dental titanium implants, the likewise important role of surface energy and wettability was increasingly strengthened. Very recently, synergistic effects of nanoscaled topographical features and hydrophilicity at the implant/bone interface have been reported.
Questions arise about which surface roughness and wetting data are capable to predict the bioresponse and, ultimately, the clinical performance. Current methods and approaches applied for topographical, wetting and surface energetic analyses are highlighted. Current knowledge of possible mechanisms explaining the influence of roughness and hydrophilicity at the biological interface is presented.
Most marketed and experimental surfaces are based on commonly available additive or subtractive surface modifying methods such as blasting, etching or anodizing. Different height, spatial, hybrid and functional roughness parameters have been identified as possible candidates able to predict the outcome at hard and soft tissue interfaces. Likewise, hydrophilic implants have been proven to improve the initial blood contact, to support the wound healing and thereby accelerating the osseointegration.
There is clear relevance for the influence of topographical and wetting characteristics on a macromolecular and cellular level at endosseous implant/biosystem interfaces. However, we are still far away from designing sophisticated implant surfaces with the best possible, selective functionality for each specific tissue or cavity interface. Firstly, because our knowledge of the respective surface related reactions is at best fragmentary. Secondly, because manufacturing of multi-scaled complex surfaces including distinct nanotopographies, wetting properties, and stable cleanliness is still a technical challenge and far away from being reproducibly transferred to implant surfaces.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0109-5641</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0097</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.007</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29029850</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Bioactivity ; Biological effects ; Biomaterials ; Biomedical materials ; Blasting ; Contamination ; Decontamination ; Dental care ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - trends ; Dental implants ; Dental Implants - trends ; Dental Prosthesis Design ; Dental prosthetics ; Dental restorative materials ; Dentistry ; Endosseous dental implantation ; Etching ; Humans ; Hydrophilicity ; Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions ; Interfaces ; Macromolecules ; Osseointegration ; Osseointegration - physiology ; Parameter identification ; Peri-implantitis ; Photocatalysis ; Photofunctionalisation ; Plasma ; Roughness ; Surface energy ; Surface Properties ; Surface roughness ; Surgical implants ; Synergistic effect ; Titanium base alloys ; Transplants & implants ; Wettability ; Wetting ; Wound healing</subject><ispartof>Dental materials, 2018-01, Vol.34 (1), p.40-57</ispartof><rights>2017 The Academy of Dental Materials</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier BV Jan 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-c248f076a7df0ac8aa6d664b0a9adde64965aeae1dd236e51cd518b70a99b5e33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-c248f076a7df0ac8aa6d664b0a9adde64965aeae1dd236e51cd518b70a99b5e33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.007$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,3551,27929,27930,46000</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29029850$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rupp, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geis-Gerstorfer, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scheideler, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hüttig, F.</creatorcontrib><title>Surface characteristics of dental implants: A review</title><title>Dental materials</title><addtitle>Dent Mater</addtitle><description>•Changes of paradigms about dental implant surfaces are highlighted.•Industrial and chair-side treatments enable surface decontamination and hydrophilization.•Implant’s surface characteristics at the time of surgical insertion are of clinical relevance.•Micro- and nanotopography as well as wettability modulate the early bioresponse.•Advanced tailored implant surfaces will further optimize future hard and soft tissue interfaces.
During the last decades, several changes of paradigm have modified our view on how biomaterials’ surface characteristics influence the bioresponse. After becoming aware of the role of a certain microroughness for improved cellular contact and osseointegration of dental titanium implants, the likewise important role of surface energy and wettability was increasingly strengthened. Very recently, synergistic effects of nanoscaled topographical features and hydrophilicity at the implant/bone interface have been reported.
Questions arise about which surface roughness and wetting data are capable to predict the bioresponse and, ultimately, the clinical performance. Current methods and approaches applied for topographical, wetting and surface energetic analyses are highlighted. Current knowledge of possible mechanisms explaining the influence of roughness and hydrophilicity at the biological interface is presented.
Most marketed and experimental surfaces are based on commonly available additive or subtractive surface modifying methods such as blasting, etching or anodizing. Different height, spatial, hybrid and functional roughness parameters have been identified as possible candidates able to predict the outcome at hard and soft tissue interfaces. Likewise, hydrophilic implants have been proven to improve the initial blood contact, to support the wound healing and thereby accelerating the osseointegration.
There is clear relevance for the influence of topographical and wetting characteristics on a macromolecular and cellular level at endosseous implant/biosystem interfaces. However, we are still far away from designing sophisticated implant surfaces with the best possible, selective functionality for each specific tissue or cavity interface. Firstly, because our knowledge of the respective surface related reactions is at best fragmentary. Secondly, because manufacturing of multi-scaled complex surfaces including distinct nanotopographies, wetting properties, and stable cleanliness is still a technical challenge and far away from being reproducibly transferred to implant surfaces.</description><subject>Bioactivity</subject><subject>Biological effects</subject><subject>Biomaterials</subject><subject>Biomedical materials</subject><subject>Blasting</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Decontamination</subject><subject>Dental care</subject><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - trends</subject><subject>Dental implants</subject><subject>Dental Implants - trends</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Dental prosthetics</subject><subject>Dental restorative materials</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Endosseous dental implantation</subject><subject>Etching</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hydrophilicity</subject><subject>Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions</subject><subject>Interfaces</subject><subject>Macromolecules</subject><subject>Osseointegration</subject><subject>Osseointegration - physiology</subject><subject>Parameter identification</subject><subject>Peri-implantitis</subject><subject>Photocatalysis</subject><subject>Photofunctionalisation</subject><subject>Plasma</subject><subject>Roughness</subject><subject>Surface energy</subject><subject>Surface Properties</subject><subject>Surface roughness</subject><subject>Surgical implants</subject><subject>Synergistic effect</subject><subject>Titanium base alloys</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><subject>Wettability</subject><subject>Wetting</subject><subject>Wound healing</subject><issn>0109-5641</issn><issn>1879-0097</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kD1PwzAQhi0EglL4BwhFYmFJOLu2EzMgVRVfUiUGYLYc-yJctU2xExD_HlcpDAxMN9xz7909hJxRKChQebUoHK47sywY0LIAVQCUe2REq1LlAKrcJyOgoHIhOT0ixzEuAIAzRQ_JEVPAVCVgRPhzHxpjMbNvJhjbYfCx8zZmbZMN-ZlfbZZm3cXrbJoF_PD4eUIOGrOMeLqrY_J6d_sye8jnT_ePs-k8t1zILreMVw2U0pSuAWMrY6STktdglHEOJVdSGDRInWMTiYJaJ2hVl6mvaoGTyZhcDrmb0L73GDu98tHiMp2DbR81VYJyKhjIhF78QRdtH9bpOs3Sr7Ks2IQmig-UDW2MARu9CX5lwpemoLdW9UIPX-utVQ1KJ6tp7HwX3tcrdL9DPxoTcDMAmGwkQ0FH63Ft0fmAttOu9f9v-AakMYk7</recordid><startdate>201801</startdate><enddate>201801</enddate><creator>Rupp, F.</creator><creator>Liang, L.</creator><creator>Geis-Gerstorfer, J.</creator><creator>Scheideler, L.</creator><creator>Hüttig, F.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201801</creationdate><title>Surface characteristics of dental implants: A review</title><author>Rupp, F. ; Liang, L. ; Geis-Gerstorfer, J. ; Scheideler, L. ; Hüttig, F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-c248f076a7df0ac8aa6d664b0a9adde64965aeae1dd236e51cd518b70a99b5e33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Bioactivity</topic><topic>Biological effects</topic><topic>Biomaterials</topic><topic>Biomedical materials</topic><topic>Blasting</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Decontamination</topic><topic>Dental care</topic><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - trends</topic><topic>Dental implants</topic><topic>Dental Implants - trends</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Dental prosthetics</topic><topic>Dental restorative materials</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Endosseous dental implantation</topic><topic>Etching</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hydrophilicity</topic><topic>Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions</topic><topic>Interfaces</topic><topic>Macromolecules</topic><topic>Osseointegration</topic><topic>Osseointegration - physiology</topic><topic>Parameter identification</topic><topic>Peri-implantitis</topic><topic>Photocatalysis</topic><topic>Photofunctionalisation</topic><topic>Plasma</topic><topic>Roughness</topic><topic>Surface energy</topic><topic>Surface Properties</topic><topic>Surface roughness</topic><topic>Surgical implants</topic><topic>Synergistic effect</topic><topic>Titanium base alloys</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><topic>Wettability</topic><topic>Wetting</topic><topic>Wound healing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rupp, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geis-Gerstorfer, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scheideler, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hüttig, F.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Dental materials</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rupp, F.</au><au>Liang, L.</au><au>Geis-Gerstorfer, J.</au><au>Scheideler, L.</au><au>Hüttig, F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Surface characteristics of dental implants: A review</atitle><jtitle>Dental materials</jtitle><addtitle>Dent Mater</addtitle><date>2018-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>40</spage><epage>57</epage><pages>40-57</pages><issn>0109-5641</issn><eissn>1879-0097</eissn><abstract>•Changes of paradigms about dental implant surfaces are highlighted.•Industrial and chair-side treatments enable surface decontamination and hydrophilization.•Implant’s surface characteristics at the time of surgical insertion are of clinical relevance.•Micro- and nanotopography as well as wettability modulate the early bioresponse.•Advanced tailored implant surfaces will further optimize future hard and soft tissue interfaces.
During the last decades, several changes of paradigm have modified our view on how biomaterials’ surface characteristics influence the bioresponse. After becoming aware of the role of a certain microroughness for improved cellular contact and osseointegration of dental titanium implants, the likewise important role of surface energy and wettability was increasingly strengthened. Very recently, synergistic effects of nanoscaled topographical features and hydrophilicity at the implant/bone interface have been reported.
Questions arise about which surface roughness and wetting data are capable to predict the bioresponse and, ultimately, the clinical performance. Current methods and approaches applied for topographical, wetting and surface energetic analyses are highlighted. Current knowledge of possible mechanisms explaining the influence of roughness and hydrophilicity at the biological interface is presented.
Most marketed and experimental surfaces are based on commonly available additive or subtractive surface modifying methods such as blasting, etching or anodizing. Different height, spatial, hybrid and functional roughness parameters have been identified as possible candidates able to predict the outcome at hard and soft tissue interfaces. Likewise, hydrophilic implants have been proven to improve the initial blood contact, to support the wound healing and thereby accelerating the osseointegration.
There is clear relevance for the influence of topographical and wetting characteristics on a macromolecular and cellular level at endosseous implant/biosystem interfaces. However, we are still far away from designing sophisticated implant surfaces with the best possible, selective functionality for each specific tissue or cavity interface. Firstly, because our knowledge of the respective surface related reactions is at best fragmentary. Secondly, because manufacturing of multi-scaled complex surfaces including distinct nanotopographies, wetting properties, and stable cleanliness is still a technical challenge and far away from being reproducibly transferred to implant surfaces.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>29029850</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.007</doi><tpages>18</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0109-5641 |
ispartof | Dental materials, 2018-01, Vol.34 (1), p.40-57 |
issn | 0109-5641 1879-0097 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1951415206 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Bioactivity Biological effects Biomaterials Biomedical materials Blasting Contamination Decontamination Dental care Dental Implantation, Endosseous - trends Dental implants Dental Implants - trends Dental Prosthesis Design Dental prosthetics Dental restorative materials Dentistry Endosseous dental implantation Etching Humans Hydrophilicity Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions Interfaces Macromolecules Osseointegration Osseointegration - physiology Parameter identification Peri-implantitis Photocatalysis Photofunctionalisation Plasma Roughness Surface energy Surface Properties Surface roughness Surgical implants Synergistic effect Titanium base alloys Transplants & implants Wettability Wetting Wound healing |
title | Surface characteristics of dental implants: A review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-13T02%3A29%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Surface%20characteristics%20of%20dental%20implants:%20A%20review&rft.jtitle=Dental%20materials&rft.au=Rupp,%20F.&rft.date=2018-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=40&rft.epage=57&rft.pages=40-57&rft.issn=0109-5641&rft.eissn=1879-0097&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.007&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2029678231%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2029678231&rft_id=info:pmid/29029850&rft_els_id=S0109564117307443&rfr_iscdi=true |