724 Comparison of surface property in four commercial implants-continuation

Friday, March 23, 2012: 10:45 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Presentation Type: Oral Session
R. LIU, T. LEI, X. YAO, V. DUSEVICH, Y. WANG, J. WOOLSEY, M. WALKER, and L. YE, University of Missouri -Kansas City, Kansas City, MO
Objective: The aim of this study continues to compare the surface properties of 4 popular dental implants (3i, Astra, Nobelbiocare, Straumann) on US market.

Method: Four implants were used: 3i Nanotite (4x 10mm, Biomet 3i, FL, USA); Astra OsseoSpeed (3.1 x 11mm, Astra Tech, Molndal, Sweden); NobelBiocare TiUnite (3.5 x 10mm, Nobel Biocare, Goteborg, Sweden); and Straumann SLActive (3.3 x 10mm, Straumann, Waldenburg, Switzerland). 1) Raman Spectroscopy was used to study the chemical/molecular structure of the surface from 4 different implants; 2) Primary osteoblastic cells from mouse alveolar bone were cultivated on implant surfaces to evaluate the biocompatibility, cell proliferation and adhesion.

Result: Raman Spectroscopy showed the presence of different phases in different implants. For the 3i and Straumann systems, the titanium pentoxide dominated. NobelBiocare implant presented anatase phase of the titanium dioxide and Astra system showed the rutile phase of the titanium dioxide and some titanium pentoxide. Preliminary data from cell adhesion showed different level of cell attachment among different implant systems. After 48 hours culture, primary osteoblastic cells proliferated well in Astra surface. The cells also reached confluence on the surface of 3i. The primary osteoblastic cells didn’t grow well as others on the surface of NobelBiocare implant surface, which may be explained by the anatase phase of titanium dioxide.

Conclusion: Although different chemical and molecular structures and different levels of cell adhesion were observed among different implant systems, further in vivo study to compare implant-bone bond strength is needed for the comparison. 

(Work supported by Rinehart foundation UMKC)

Keywords: Adhesion, Biocompatibility, Implants and Surfaces
Previous Abstract | Next Abstract >>