Surface Modification of Dental Implants and Experimental Study on Commercially Pure Titanium(CP-Ti) Surface

1. Surface Modification of Dental Implants
and Experimental Study on
Commercially Pure Titanium(CP-Ti)
Surface
11065110 - İbrahim Ahsen Dikici
Advisor:
Asst. Prof. Binnur SAĞBAŞ
Undergraduate Thesis
Prepared in Materials Science and Manufacturing Technologies
Yıldız Technical University , Turkey – May 6th, 2016

2. Objectives
Background
Introduction
Materials and Methodology
Surface Modification and
Characterization
Results & Discussions
Conclusions
Outline

3. Synthetic
Biomaterials
metals
ceramics
polymersComposites
Introduction
Biomaterial is…
"any substance (other than drugs) or
combination of substances synthetic or
natural in origin, which can be used for
any period of time, as a whole or as a
part of a system which treats,
augments, or replaces any tissue, organ,
or function of the body".
Orthopedic screws/
fixation
Dental Implants
Skin/
cartilage
Drug Delivery
Devices
Ocular
implants
Heart valves
Bone replacements
Joint implants

4. Introduction and History
Dental implants are surgically
fixed substitutes for roots of
missing teeth. Embedded in the
jawbone, they act as anchors
for a replacement tooth, also
known as a crown, or a full set
of replacement teeth.
The Romans, Chinese, and Aztec
used gold in dentistry more than
2000 years ago..
The most widely accepted and successful dental
implant today is the osseointegrated implant,
discovered by Professor Per-Ingvar Brånemark in the 1950s
crown crown
gum
bone
root fixture
tooth implant
abutment

5. Background
Surface roughness
Chemical composition
Surface morphology &
Topography
Successful
implantation

6. Surface Modification
 In order to accomplish biological integration, it is necessary to have
good bone formability. In applications, good wear and corrosion
resistance is also required. The proper surface modification techniques
not only retain the excellent bulk attributes of titanium and its alloys,
such as relatively low modulus, good fatigue strength, formability and
machinability, but also improve specific surface properties required by
different clinical applications.

7. Surface Modification
 1. Mechanical Methods
 1.1. Grit-blasted Surface
 1.2. Laser Modified Micro- and Nano-Structered Surface
 2. Chemical Methods
 2.1. Chemical Treatment
 Acid Treatment, Hydrogen Peroxide Treatment, Alkali Treatment
 2.2. Sol–Gel Coatings
 TiO2 Coatings, Calcium Phosphate Coatings,Titania/Hydroxyapatite Composite Coatings
 2.3. Anodic Oxidation
 2.4. Chemical Vapor Deposition
 3. Physical Methods
 3.1. Thermal Spraying
 3.2. Physical Vapor Deposition
 3.3. Glow Discharge Plasma Treatment
 3.4. Ion Implantation and Deposition
 Oxygen Implantation, Nitrogen Implantation, Carbon Implantation and Deposition, Metal Ion
Implantation

8. Surface Characterization
 In order to achieve a desired biological response for implants
in different medical applications various kinds of structural
and chemical modifications have been developed.
 It is now generally accepted that surface features at different
length scales influence the integration.
 Characterization of the topography by scanning electron
microscopy (SEM), chemical composition and electrical
properties were studied using X-ray diffraction (XRD), Xray
photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS).

9. Samples Characterization
Surface Profilometer
XRDEDX
SEM

10. Objectives
 Surface treatments and modification such as BCP grit blasting
or acid etched and a combination of blasting and acid etching
technique were applied to do selected dental implant
samples.
 In this experimental study, roughness specifications (e.g., Ra,
Rq, Rz) values of all surfaces were measured with contact
stylus profilometer device.
 To achieve more accurate surfaces images, surface
topographies were also investigated with scanning electron
microscope(SEM).

11. ProjectRoadMap Project Start
Literature Study
Grit Blasting
Acid Etching
Grit Blasting+Acid
Etching
Final Report
Project End
Project
BCP(HA%65 + b-
TCP %35) grit-
blasted (particle
size <300 µm
Output:
Profilometer,
SEM
Output:
Profilometer,
SEM
Output:
Profilometer,
SEM
(1% HF +
30%HNO3 for 60
min at room
temperature)

12. Materials and Methodology
 Titanium implants : cp-Ti grade 4
Diameter:4.1mm, length: 11.5 mm
Titanium is biocompatible (non-toxic and is not
rejected by the body) and has the inherent property
to osseointegrate enabling use in dental implants
that can remain in place untill the end of life.
Table Standard Specification for Unalloyed Titanium, for Surgical
Implant Applications(UNS R50700), ASTM F67 – 13

13. Materials - Grit Blasting
Granules size : 100-150 μm, 150-200 μm, 200-250 μm, and 250-325 μm
 Hydroxyapatite
[Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2]
Bioactive, able to integrate in bone
structures and support bone
ingrowths, without breaking down or
dissolving . Generally applied as a
blasting materials
Grit Blasting
Air pressure:
4 Bar for 40
seconds

14. Materials - Acid Etching
Concentration: 1% HF + 30% HNO3
Duration: 60 Minutes at RT
 Hydrofluoric Acid [HF]
 Nitric Acid [HNO3]
a colorless and weak acid, higly
corrosive, capable of dissolving
many materials
a highly corrosive and toxic strong
acid, used for the production of
fertilizers, production of explosives,
etching and dissolution of metals
Acid Etching
HF/HNO3
Blasted
Ti
implants

15. Results & Discussion >

16. Results & Discussion >
Surface Roughness
Number Ra Rz Rq
1 1,35 µm 9,1 µm 1,66 µm
2 1,26 µm 21,0 µm 1,97 µm
3 1,19 µm 6,7 µm 1,43 µm
4 0,46 µm 2,4 µm 0,54 µm
5 0,46 µm 2,6 µm 0,54 µm
6 0,60 µm 4,9 µm 0,80 µm
7 0,35 µm 1,8 µm 0,41 µm
8 0,31 µm 1,6 µm 0,36 µm
9 0,38 µm 3,3 µm 0,48 µm
10 1,65 µm 8,6 µm 1,95 µm
11 1,68 µm 12,4 µm 2,32 µm
12 1,41 µm 9,5 µm 1,73 µm
Surface Roughness Parameters

17. Results & Discussion >
Surface Roughness
The BCP grit blasted surfaces were provided with Ra values in
the range of 1.41 - 1.65 µm, Ra values of BCP grit
blasted+acid etched surfaces in the range of 1.19 - 1.35 µm
while the only acid etched surfaces were of a reported range
of 0,46 - 0,60 µm. All of them had higher Ra values than the
as-machined surface roughness of 0.31 - 0.38 µm. The
HF/HNO3 treatment resulted in the embellishment of the
microrough BCP grit blasted surface with nano and
microtopographic features.

18. Tissue Implants different types of surfaces observed by scanning electron microscope(SEM) at 50x magnification
Machined+BCP grit blasted+acid etched surfaces Machined+acid etched surfaces
Machined surfaces Machined+BCP grit blasted surfaces
Results & Discussion >
Surface Morphology

19. Surface Morphology
Results & Discussion >
Machined+BCP grit blasted+acid etched surfaces Machined+acid etched surfaces
Machined surfaces Machined+BCP grit blasted surfaces
Tissue Implants different types of surfaces observed by scanning electron microscope(SEM) at 5000x magnification
softer edges and
less observed
protruding
surfaces
sharp edges and
ridge occurring
white little
clusters
smooth areas

20. Conclusions
 To conclude that rough-surfaced implants have significantly higher success rates
compared with dental implants with smooth surfaces. Because roughness of the
surface plays a predominant role in cell adhesion during the implant healing
phases, this factor should be considered in the manufacturing of endosseous
implants.
 This study demonstrated major differences of the surface properties, according to
the surface treatment used, i.e., BCP grit blasting or HF/HNO3 etched and a
combination of blasting and acid etching technique for the implants.
 The highest Ra value ranges was measured respectively on bcp grit blasted implant
1,41-1,68µm, BCP grit blasted+acid etched implant 1,19-1,35µm, acid etched
implant 0,46-0,60µm and machined implant 0,31-0,38µm.
 Despite the importance of roughness in osseointegration, there is no standart for
the roughness of dental implants and other surface properties should also be
considered important in the biologic response and may be more critical
parameters of biocompatibility than surface roughness.
 In addition to this study, in vivo studies with animal models are necessary for a
better comparison of the osseointegrative properties of these four different
surfaces.

21. Thank you…