Hydrophilic surfaces article summary
Hydrophilic surfaces article summary
Hydrophilic surfaces article summary
Time to challenge old facts
Implant stability, essential for successful osseointegration, undergoes modifications over time. The transition from mechanical to biological stability during healing is key for evaluating implant success [1]. Osseointegration’s predictability relies on several factors, including implant material, design, surface finish, bone condition, surgical technique, and loading conditions. Moderately rough surfaces have advantages over other textures, and most dental implants now have this surface type [2].
In vitro and in vivo studies show hydrophilic surfaces may improve early bone cell differentiation and mineralization, influencing bone wound healing. These surfaces might enhance osseointegration by modulating the inflammatory response (down-regulation pro-inflammatory cytokines and upregulating anti-inflammatory cytokines) and promoting osteogenesis and angiogenesis [3].
Recently, there was a study in rabbits examining the effect of hydrophilic implant surfaces on primary and secondary implant stability to determine if hydrophilic surfaces would affect secondary stability compared to hydrophobic surfaces [4].
The study used 96 control and 96 test implants with hydrophilic surfaces, all 3.5 mm in diameter and 8 mm long, with similar macro-geometry. Hydrophilicity was achieved by a non-conductive organic non-ionic coating. The implants were placed in tibias and femurs, with stability measured immediately and at 2, 4, and 8 weeks post-surgery.
Biomechanical tests evaluated implant stability through insertion torque (ITQ), implant stability quotient (ISQ), and removal torque (RTQ) values. ITQ measurements are crucial in assessing the primary stability of a dental implant at the time of its placement [5]. This measurement indicates the degree of resistance the bone provides against the implant, which is vital for immediate loading decisions and predicting the success of osseointegration. High ITQ values generally suggest good primary stability, reducing the risk of implant movement and contributing to the overall success of the implant procedure.
Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in ITQ, RTQ, or ISQ values between the hydrophilic and control implants in any time period, suggesting hydrophilic properties don’t significantly impact primary or secondary stability compared to conventional hydrophobic surfaces.
Reference:
- Kittur, N.; Oak, R.; Dekate, D.; Jadhav, S.; Dhatrak, P. Dental implant stability and its measurements to improve osseointegration at the bone-implant interface: A review. Materials Today: Proceedings 2021, 43, 1064-1070.
- Matos, G.R.M. Surface roughness of dental implant and osseointegration. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery 2021, 20, 1-4.
- Afonso Ferreira, J.; Mattias Sartori, E.; Piola Rizzante, F.A.; Siqueira, R.; Silveira Mendonça, D.B.; de Magalhães, D.; Mendonça, G. Analysis In Vivo of Bone Modulation in Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Titanium Implant Surfaces. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2021, 36.
- Jinno, Y.; Stocchero, M.; Galli, S.; Toia, M.; Becktor, J.P. Impact of a hydrophilic dental implant surface on osseointegration: Biomechanical results in rabbit. Journal of Oral Implantology 2021, 47, 163-168.
- do Vale Souza, J.P.; de Moraes Melo Neto, C.L.; Piacenza, L.T.; Freitas da Silva, E.V.; de Melo Moreno, A.L.; Penitente, P.A.; Brunetto, J.L.; Dos Santos, D.M.; Goiato, M.C. Relation between insertion torque and implant stability quotient: a clinical study. European Journal of Dentistry 2021, 15, 618-623.
For over two decades, Dentalis has led implant dentistry into a new era of attainability and aesthetics.
The pink tissue versatile implant neck combines superior
gingival aesthetics and high primary stability,
improved placement, temporization,
which is particularly beneficial in the
most aesthetically demanding cases.
REFERENCES:
1.Bittner N, Schulze-Späte U, Cleber S, Da Silva J, Kim D, Tarnow D, Ishikawa-Nagai S, Gil M. Comparison of Peri-implant Soft Tissue Color with the Use of Pink-Neck vs Gray Implants and Abutments Based on Soft Tissue Thickness:
A 6-Month Follow-up Study. Int J Prosthodont. 2020Jan/Feb;33(1):29-38.
2. Gil M, Ishikawa-Nagai S, Elani H, Da Silva J, Kim D, Tarnow D, Schulze-Späte U, Cleber S, Bittner N. Comparison of the Color Appearance of Peri-implant Soft Tissue with Natural Gingiva Using Anodized Pink-Neck Implants and Pink Abutments: A Prospective Clinical Trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 May/June;34(3):752–758.
3.Gil M, Ishikawa-Nagai S, Elani H. A prospective clinical trial to assess the optical efficacy of pink neck implants and pink abutments on soft tissue aesthetics. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017;29(6):1-7.38.
For over two decades, Dentalis has led implant dentistry into a new era of attainability and aesthetics.
The pink tissue versatile implant neck combines superior gingival aesthetics and high primary stability, improved placement, and temporization, which is particularly beneficial in aesthetically demanding cases.
REFERENCES:
1.Bittner N, Schulze-Späte U, Cleber S, Da Silva J, Kim D, Tarnow D, Ishikawa-Nagai S, Gil M. Comparison of Peri-implant Soft Tissue Color with the Use of Pink-Neck vs Gray Implants and Abutments Based on Soft Tissue Thickness:
A 6-Month Follow-up Study. Int J Prosthodont. 2020Jan/Feb;33(1):29-38.
2. Gil M, Ishikawa-Nagai S, Elani H, Da Silva J, Kim D, Tarnow D, Schulze-Späte U, Cleber S, Bittner N. Comparison of the Color Appearance of Peri-implant Soft Tissue with Natural Gingiva Using Anodized Pink-Neck Implants and Pink Abutments: A Prospective Clinical Trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 May/June;34(3):752–758.
3.Gil M, Ishikawa-Nagai S, Elani H. A prospective clinical trial to assess the optical efficacy of pink neck implants and pink abutments on soft tissue aesthetics. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017;29(6):1-7.38.