![Chemical Bonding?
Machined Ti
DAE Ti
DAE Ti-nanoHA
Shear strength at 2 wk
S=F/A [N/mm2]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-recentadvancesinimplantsurfacescience-120108191009-phpapp01/85/2-recent-advances-in-implant-surface-science-80-320.jpg)
2.recent advances in implant surface science
The document discusses problems with initial titanium plasma spray implant surfaces and issues removing contaminants from sandblasted surfaces. It then summarizes several studies showing double acid-etched implant surfaces promote faster and greater bone formation compared to machined surfaces. Specifically, bone deposited on double acid-etched surfaces is harder, with collagen organized differently, and genes related to bone formation are upregulated faster. Coating implant surfaces with nanoscale hydroxyapatite or liquid titanium dioxide further enhances bone formation and implant integration.
More Related Content
Similar to 2.recent advances in implant surface science
More from www.ffofr.org - Foundation for Oral Facial Rehabilitiation
2.recent advances in implant surface science
- 3. Problems • ome of the initial titanium plasma spray S surfaces were excessively rough and giant cells and macrophages were seen phagocytizing portions of the surface (particle disease). • t was very difficult to remove the I contaminants from the original sand blasted surfaces. • he original plasma spray HA-CaP surfaces T were not predictable
- 7. Note the lossof bone around these HA coated implants 4 years after insertion.
- 12. *Ichiro Nishimura DDS,PhD and Takahiro Ogawa DDS, PhD
- 16. Klokkevold et al,1997, 2001
- 17. Klokkevold et al,1997, 2001)
- 18.
- 19. Machined = 4.95 ± 1.61 Ncm Double acid etched = 20.50 ± 6.59 Ncm Klokkevold et al, 1997"
- 20. Klokkevold et al,1997"
- 22. Acid etched vsMachine surface Near zone Far zone (Ogawa and Nishimura, 2000, 2003),
- 23. Electrolytically Titanium Double acid Sandblast acid Modified plasma spray etched etched
- 24.
- 26. " Micro-rough surfaces and osseointegration
- 32. T-cell implant Machined Acid-etched
- 33. Osteopontin and osteocalcin accellerated and upregulated (Calcium binding molecules) They also noted that the bone deposited on the DAE implant surfaces was different than bone deposited on the machined implant surfaces.
- 34. Nishimura and Ogawasuggested several reasons including: Might it be an implant dependent mechanism?" Ogawa and Nishimura, 2000, 2002, and 2003!
- 36. 19 implant-specific (-+ +) 42 different clones
- 40. Osseointegration-specific expression Accelerated expressionfor the double acid etched surface
- 42.
- 43. " Collagendensityand orientation, as well as the degree of mineralization are contributing factors relative to the microhardness and elastic modulus of bone
- 45. 0.2 0.1 0
- 46. 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
- 47. Bone around machinedsurfaces is as hard as the trabecular bone, while the bone around the DAE surfaces is as hard as the cortical bone. " Ogawa et al, 2005
- 48. Day 28 Day 14 7 Day 21 0 3 Osteoblast Non-collagenous matrix Mineral deposition Collagen matrix
- 51.
- 55.
- 57. 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0
- 58. 100 80 60 40 20 0
- 59.
- 60. Cx Hy UV-pretreated TiO2 TiO2 R C O O O Ti4+ Ti4+ O hv (h+) O Ti4+ Ti4+ O
- 61. Aita et al,2009; Atta et al, 2009
- 62.
- 63. 1st generation! 2nd generation! 3rd generation Ti blasted surface! Sand-blasted, ! acid-etched surface! Dual acid-etched ! surface! Electrolytically enhanced!
- 65.
- 66. 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
- 67. Potential advantages of gene delivery" Disadvantages " Regulatory issues " ime to market T " Cost/Benefit ratio
- 68.
- 70. Current Defini6on 1. Size: 1 to 100 nanometer range 2. Novel proper6es due to its small size 3. Incorporated into large material components
- 71. Human corneal epithelial cells with Fibroblast growth was 70nm groove (A) or flat surface (B) prohibited on nano-‐structured surface
- 72. Osteoblast Fibroblast Webster et al, Biomaterials, 1999 Richert et al, Orthoped Res Soc abstract, 2006
- 73. Sabirianov et al, Enhanced ini6al protein adsorp6on on engineered nanostructured cubic zirconia
- 74. Scopelli6 et al, The effect of surface nanometre-‐scale morphology on protein adsorp6on, PlosOne, 2010
- 75. Loberg et al, Open Biomater J, 2010 Hansson et al, Open Biomater J, 2010
- 78. Before After
- 80. Chemical Bonding? Machined Ti DAETi DAE Ti-nanoHA Shear strength at 2 wk S=F/A [N/mm2]
- 81. Nishimura and Butz et al, 2004 When nano-HA coating was added to conventional smooth and DAE implants, bone anchorage was increased over 100%. In fact DAE Ti-nanoHA implant showed the accelerated bone-implant integration at the level that has never been reported.
- 82.
- 83.
- 85. Nano-surface modification oftitanium surface Further enhancement of the surface topography by physical vapor deposition (Ogawa et al, 2007; Sugita et al, 2011) Increased surface area for bone deposition Surface topography created similar to mineralized bone matrix Enhanced osteoblast adhesion, proliferation and differentiation Promotion of osteoblast function Greater strength of osseointegration
- 86. Sugita et al,2011
- 87. Liquidified TiO2- coated Ti! Sugita et al, 2011
- 88. No surface topographychange before and after The micro-rough topgraphy is unchanged by the coating Sugita et al, 2011
- 90. P<0.05 WST-1/cell 0.2 0.1 0 Control Ti Liquid TiO2 coated N=3 Sugita et al, 2011
- 91. Expedited and enhanced cellular settlement and spread Control Ti! Liquid TiO2 coated! Overlay! Overlay! min! 15 50µm! 50µm! Uncoated surface 15 minute TiO2 coated surface Sugita et al, 2011
- 92. P<0.05 BrdU incorporation / cell 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Untreated Liquid TiO2 coated N=3 Sugita et al, 2011
- 93. P<0.05 ALP activity 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Untreated Liquid TiO2 coated Sugita et al, 2011
- 94.
- 95. Sugita et al,2011
- 96. Control! Liquid TiO2 coated! Control! Liquid TiO2 coated! Sugita et al, 2011
- 97. Sugita et al,2011
- 98. " Thebiologic events leading to osseointegration have been accelerated " Better bone anchorage
- 99. Can we useshorter implants?