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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Dental materials 2018-01, Vol.34 (1), p.40-57
Hauptverfasser: Rupp, F., Liang, L., Geis-Gerstorfer, J., Scheideler, L., Hüttig, F.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics &amp; Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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