Article Options


Advanced Search

This service is provided on D[e]nt Publishing standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy. To enquire about a licence to reproduce material from and/or JofER, click here.
This website is published by D[e]nt Publishing Ltd, Phoenix AZ, US.
D[e]nt Publishing is part of the specialist publishing group Oral Science & Business Media Inc.

Creative Commons License

Recent Articles RSS:
Subscribe to recent articles RSS
or Subscribe to Email.

Blog RSS:
Subscribe to blog RSS
or Subscribe to Email.

 »  Home  »  Dental Implant 2  »  Bone Interface of Dental Implants Cytologically Influenced by a Modified Sandblasted Surface: A Preliminary In Vitro Study
Bone Interface of Dental Implants Cytologically Influenced by a Modified Sandblasted Surface: A Preliminary In Vitro Study

Bookmark and Share

Dehua Li (MD, DDS, PhD), Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Qindu Stomatological College, Xian, China.
Baolin Liu (DM, DDS), Professor and Chairman, Craniofacial Implant Center, Qindu Stomatological College, Xian, China.
Junzheng Wu (DM, DDS), Professor and Chairman, Department Of Oral Biology, Qindu Stomatological College, Xian, China.
Jianyuan Chen (Technician), Technician, Department Of Oral Biology, Qindu  Stomatological College, Xian, China.

Dental implants have been developed into a scientifically and clinically accepted restoration modality in completely and partially edentulous patients. This achievement has been primarily founded on the principle of osseointegration, which was mainly discovered and defined by Branemark and his colleagues. Attempts have been made to enhance osseointegration by the surface modification of dental implants. The common realization has been that rough surfaces favor osseointegration, and this has led to a variety of implant products with various surface types, such as titanium plasma spray, hydroxyapatite coating, sintered titanium coating, etc. As an alternative noncoating course of study, a modified sandblasted surface has been developed. It features two levels of rough topographic textures (the sandblasted macrotexture and the inhabiting acid etched micropores), no heteroelement pollution on the surface, and no compromise of anticorrosiveness caused by the increasing surface area. It was biologically demonstrated that this new surface could accelerate the initial bone healing process at the implant-bone interface and quadruple interfacial shear strengths. Except for the difference in processing, these results were consistent with the findings of Buser et al with the sandblasted and acid-etched surface that they developed. All these studies were geared to reveal that topography, especially on the scale of cellular dimensions, could work as a biocompatibility-influencing factor as well as a biomechanical factor. Concerning the mechanism, there is no definite answer. Based on cytological experiments, Martin et al and Boyan et al found that topography could influence protein synthesis and differentiation of osteoblasts. Although their findings cast a light on the mechanism of topographic influences on the bone-healing process, the extrapolation was literally restricted by their experimental models, which fell into a two dimensional scope. As a matter of fact, the cells around inserted implants are accommodated in an extracellular fibrils-constructed skeleton.
In this study, a three-dimensional experimental cell culture model developed by the authors16 was used to demonstrate the influence of the modified sandblasted surface on the cytological interaction at the implant bone interface. The study was aimed at verifying its feasibility and advantages as an implant surface and revealing its mechanism in influencing bone interface at an in vitro level.