Evaluation of anti-inflammatory properties on the surface of dental implants depending on the type of processing

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14739/mmt.2024.3.299484

Keywords:

dental implant, titanium, surface treatment, peri-implantitis, method of surface treatment, stability factor, inflammatory disease, complex treatment

Abstract

The aim. Study of the anti-inflammatory properties of the surface of commercial dental implants made of zirconium and titanium with different processing methods using the example of the course of the first stage of implantation.

Materials and methods. The structural (microstructure of the surface, biocompatibility, surface corrosion, elemental surface structures) and clinical (severity of peri-implantitis and mucositis, coefficient of implant stability) characteristics of dental implants made of zirconium with surface treatment by the PEO method and implants made of titanium with DAE surface treatment were studied. Median test (χ2), Kruskal–Wallis test (H), univariate variance analysis (F) were used. The difference in parameters was considered statistically significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level.

Results. The PEO surface had a monolithic surface layer with rounded pores averaging 4.51 μm2. The DAE surface had a polyhedral irregular shape, about 7–12 μm2. On the DAE surface: carbon – 4.59 wt%, oxygen – 6.16 wt% and traces of zinc were found. A significant difference in the elemental composition of PEO implants was the presence of chlorine (0.93 wt%), silicium (0.14 wt%), aluminum (0.23 wt%), potassium (0.47 wt%) and magnesium (0.07 wt%). The results of comparing the contact angle of the B&B Dental 29.2 ± 5.9° and Zircon-Prior 21.5 ± 3.3° samples had no statistically significant difference (р > 0.05). After 7 days of exposure in the SBF solution, zirconium implants with a PEO surface increased calcium by 21.87 wt%, phosphorus by 35.68 wt%, sodium by 72.89 wt%, and chlorine by 76.21 wt%. Aluminum, silicium, and zinc were no longer detected. The peculiarity of the titanium implant sample with the DAE surface was only the background level of calcium – 0.06 wt% and the complete absence of phosphorus; the most significant components were oxygen – 16.71 wt%, carbon – 12.37 wt%, sodium – 6.47 wt%, and chlorine – 5.90 wt%. Assessment of cell adhesion to the surface of Zircon-Prior and B&B Dental samples neither on the first nor on the seventh day of incubation did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference. Clinical signs of bone tissue resorption were identified around 30.8 % of implants with a PEO surface and 27.3 % of implants with a DAE surface (p = 0.8); inflammation of the mucous membrane – in the areas of installation of 34.6 % of PEO implants and 72.7 % of DAE (p = 0.009). 3.8 % of PEO implants and 9.1 % of DAE implants were lost (p = 0.44). The average ISQ were significantly different: 59.2 ± 4.1 DAE implants versus 64.4 ± 4.9 PEO implants, p = 0.003.

Conclusions. Resorption of bone tissue around zirconium implants with a PEO surface (30.8 %) was more common than around titanium implants with DAE surface treatment (27.3 %), p = 0.8. Clinical signs of bacterial damage were more frequent and more severe around DAE-coated implants (72.7 %) than in the areas of PEO implants (34.6 %), p = 0.009. In zirconium implants with surface treatment by the PEO method (64.4 ± 4.9 units), the index of stability (ISQ) was significantly higher than in titanium implants with surface treatment by the DAE method (59.2 ± 4.1 units, p = 0.003). The probability of “loss” of titanium implants with DAE surface treatment (9.1 %) at the surgical stages of implantation is higher than that of zirconium implants with PEO surface treatment (3.8 %, p = 0.44).

Author Biographies

S. D. Varzhapetian, Zaporizhzhia State Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Ukraine

MD, PhD, DSc, Associate Professor of the Department of Therapeutic, Orthopedic and Pediatric Dentistry

M. A. Shyshkin, Zaporizhzhia State Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Ukraine

MD, PhD, DSc, Professor of the Department of Pathological Anatomy and Forensic Medicine

T. V. Strohonova, Zaporizhzhia State Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Ukraine

PhD, Associate Professor of the Department of Medical Physics, Biophysics, and Further Mathematics

O. O. Kokar, Zaporizhzhia State Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Ukraine

MD, PhD, Associate Professor of the Department of Therapeutic, Orthopedic and Pediatric Dentistry

References

  1. Jing Z, Zhang T, Xiu P, Cai H, Wei Q, Fan D, et al. Functionalization of 3D-printed titanium alloy orthopedic implants: a literature review. Biomed Mater. 2020;15(5):052003. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-605X/ab9078
  2. Hoque ME, Showva NN, Ahmed M, Rashid AB, Sadique SE, El-Bialy T, et al. Titanium and titanium alloys in dentistry: current trends, recent developments, and future prospects. Heliyon. 2022;8(11):e11300. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11300
  3. Bandyopadhyay A, Mitra I, Goodman SB, Kumar M, Bose S. Improving Biocompatibility for Next Generation of Metallic Implants. Prog Mater Sci. 2023;133:101053. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2022.101053
  4. Franasiak JM, Alecsandru D, Forman EJ, Gemmell LC, Goldberg JM, Llarena N, et al. A review of the pathophysiology of recurrent implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(6):1436-48. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.09.014
  5. Akshaya S, Rowlo PK, Dukle A, Nathanael AJ. Antibacterial Coatings for Titanium Implants: Recent Trends and Future Perspectives. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11(12):1719. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11121719
  6. Jimenez-Marcos C, Mirza-Rosca JC, Baltatu MS, Vizureanu P. Experimental Research on New Developed Titanium Alloys for Biomedical Applications. Bioengineering (Basel). 2022;9(11):686. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering9110686
  7. Zhang Z, He D, Zheng Y, Wu Y, Li Q, Gong H, et al. Microstructure and mechanical properties of hot-extruded Mg–2Zn-xGa (x=1, 3, 5 and 7 wt.%) alloys. Materials science and engineering A. 2022;859:144208. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2022.144208
  8. Kligman S, Ren Z, Chung CH, Perillo MA, Chang YC, Koo H, et al. The Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration and Biofilm Formation. J Clin Med. 2021;10(8):1641. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10081641
  9. Velasco-Ortega E, Ortiz-García I, Jiménez-Guerra A, Monsalve-Guil L, Muñoz-Guzón F, Perez RA, et al. Comparison between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants: In Vivo Study. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(13):3267. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20133267
  10. Michalska J, Sowa M, Piotrowska M, Widziołek M, Tylko G, Dercz G, et al. Incorporation of Ca ions into anodic oxide coatings on the Ti-13Nb-13Zr alloy by plasma electrolytic oxidation. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019;104:109957. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.109957
  11. Aliofkhazraei M, Macdonald DD, Matykina E, Parfenov EV, Egorkin VS, Curran JA, et al. Review of plasma electrolytic oxidation of titanium substrates: Mechanism, properties, applications and limitations. Applied Surface Science Advances. 2021;5:100121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsadv.2021.100121
  12. Risse L, Woodcock S, Brüggemann JP, Kullmer G, Richard HA. Stiffness optimization and reliable design of a hip implant by using the potential of additive manufacturing processes. Biomed Eng Online. 2022;21(1):23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-022-00990-z
  13. Pesode P, Barve S. A review—metastable β titanium alloy for biomedical applications. J Eng Appl Sci. 2023;70(1):25-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-023-00196-7
  14. Vaghela H, Eaton K. Is Zirconia a Viable Alternative to Titanium for Dental Implantology? Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2022;30(1):1-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2166Vaghela14
  15. Mishchenko O, Ovchynnykov O, Kapustian O, Pogorielov M. New Zr-Ti-Nb Alloy for Medical Application: Development, Chemical and Mechanical Properties, and Biocompatibility. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(6):1306. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13061306
  16. Chiou LL, Panariello BH, Hamada Y, Gregory RL, Blanchard S, Duarte S. Comparison of In Vitro Biofilm Formation on Titanium and Zirconia Implants. Biomed Res Int. 2023;2023:8728499. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8728499
  17. Varzhapetian SD, Shyshkin MA, Strogonova TV [Evaluation of antibacterial properties on the surface of dental implants depending on the type of processing (Part 1)]. Pathologia. 2024;21(1):14-22. Ukrainian. doi: https://doi.org/10.14739/2310-1237.2024.1.296397
  18. Kormas I, Pedercini C, Pedercini A, Raptopoulos M, Alassy H, Wolff LF. Peri-Implant Diseases: Diagnosis, Clinical, Histological, Microbiological Characteristics and Treatment Strategies. A Narrative Review. Antibiotics (Basel). 2020;9(11):835. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9110835
  19. Kniha K, Kniha H, Grunert I, Edelhoff D, Hölzle F, Modabber A. Esthetic Evaluation of Maxillary Single-Tooth Zirconia Implants in the Esthetic Zone. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019;39(5):e195-e201. doi: https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.3282
  20. Schünemann FH, Galárraga-Vinueza ME, Magini R, Fredel M, Silva F, Souza JC, et al. Zirconia surface modifications for implant dentistry. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019;98:1294-305. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.01.062
  21. Almas K, Smith S, Kutkut A. What is the Best Micro and Macro Dental Implant Topography? Dent Clin North Am. 2019;63(3):447-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2019.02.010
  22. Yeo IL. Modifications of Dental Implant Surfaces at the Micro- and Nano-Level for Enhanced Osseointegration. Materials (Basel). 2019;13(1):89. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13010089
  23. Achinas S, Charalampogiannis N, Euverink GJ. A brief recap of microbial adhesion and biofilms. Applied Sciences. 2019;9(14):2801. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/app9142801
  24. Hickok NJ, Shapiro IM, Chen AF. The Impact of Incorporating Antimicrobials into Implant Surfaces. J Dent Res. 2018;97(1):14-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034517731768
  25. Khurshid Z, Saudah Hafeji, Tekin S, Syed Shahid Habib, Ullah R, Farshid Sefat, et al. Titanium, zirconia, and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as a dental implant material. In: Dental Implants: Materials, Coatings, Surface Modifications and Interfaces with Oral Tissues. Elsevier; 2020. p. 5-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819586-4.00002-0
  26. Lampé I, Beke D, Biri S, Csarnovics I, Csik A, Dombrádi Z, et al. Investigation of silver nanoparticles on titanium surface created by ion implantation technology. Int J Nanomedicine. 2019;14:4709-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S197782
  27. Cai Z, Li Y, Wang Y, Chen S, Jiang S, Ge H, et al. Disinfect Porphyromonas gingivalis Biofilm on Titanium Surface with Combined Application of Chlorhexidine and Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy. Photochem Photobiol. 2019;95(3):839-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13060
  28. Seyfi M, Fattah-alhosseini A, Pajohi-Alamoti M, Nikoomanzari E. Effect of ZnO nanoparticles addition to PEO coatings on AZ31B Mg alloy: antibacterial effect and corrosion behavior of coatings in Ringer’s physiological solution. Journal of Asian Ceramic Societies. 2021;9(3):1114-27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21870764.2021.1940728
  29. Alfarsi MA, Hamlet SM, Ivanovski S. Titanium surface hydrophilicity enhances platelet activation. Dent Mater J. 2014;33(6):749-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2013-221
  30. Çomakli O, Yazici M, Yetim T, Yetim F, Celik A. Tribological and Electrochemical Behavior of Ag2O/ZnO/NiO Nanocomposite Coating on Commercial Pure Titanium for Biomedical Applications. Industrial Lubrication and Tribology. 2019;71(10):1166-76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ILT-11-2018-0414
  31. Varshney S, Nigam A, Singh A, Samanta SK, Mishra N, Tewari RP. Antibacterial, Structural, and Mechanical Properties of MgO/ZnO Nanocomposites and its HA-Based Bio-Ceramics; Synthesized via Physio-Chemical Route for Biomedical Applications. Materials Technology. 2022:37(13):2503-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10667857.2022.2043661

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2024-09-30

How to Cite

Varzhapetian, S. D., Shyshkin, M. A., Strohonova, T. V., & Kokar, O. O. (2024). Evaluation of anti-inflammatory properties on the surface of dental implants depending on the type of processing. Modern Medical Technology, 16(3), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.14739/mmt.2024.3.299484

Issue

Vol. 16 No. 3 (2024)

Section

Original research

License

The work is provided under the terms of the Public Offer and of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license allows an unlimited number of persons to reproduce and share the Licensed Material in all media and formats. Any use of the Licensed Material shall contain an identification of its Creator(s) and must be for non-commercial purposes only.