J Adv Prosthodont.  2014 Aug;6(4):302-308. 10.4047/jap.2014.6.4.302.

Comparison of removal torques between laser-treated and SLA-treated implant surfaces in rabbit tibiae

• Kang NS
• Li LJ
• Cho SA

• KMID: 1974850
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.4.302

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to compare removal torques and surface topography between laser treated and sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) treated implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Laser-treated implants (experimental group) and SLA-treated implants (control group) 8 mm in length and 3.4 mm in diameter were inserted into both sides of the tibiae of 12 rabbits. Surface analysis was accomplished using a field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM; Hitachi S-4800; Japan) under x25, x150 and x1,000 magnification. Surface components were analyzed using energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). Rabbits were sacrificed after a 6-week healing period. The removal torque was measured using the MGT-12 digital torque meter (Mark-10 Co., Copiague, NY, USA).
RESULTS
In the experimental group, the surface analysis showed uniform porous structures under x25, x150 and x1,000 magnification. Pore sizes in the experimental group were 20-40 mm and consisted of numerous small pores, whereas pore sizes in the control group were 0.5-2.0 mm. EDS analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups. The mean removal torque in the laser-treated and the SLA-treated implant groups were 79.4 Ncm (SD = 20.4; range 34.6-104.3 Ncm) and 52.7 Ncm (SD = 17.2; range 18.7-73.8 Ncm), respectively. The removal torque in the laser-treated surface implant group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P=.004).
CONCLUSION
In this study, removal torque values were significantly higher for laser-treated surface implants than for SLA-treated surface implants.

Keyword

Sandblasted large-grit acid-etched; Laser treatment; Removal torque; Scanning electron microscope; Energy dispersive spectroscopy

MeSH Terms

Rabbits
Spectrum Analysis
Tibia*
Torque*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Experimental implant (left: laser) and control implant (right: SLA).

• 

  Fig. 2 Tibia sample including the inserted implant.

• 

  Fig. 3 Experimental and control group implant images obtained by field emission SEM: (A) Experimental group (×25); (B) control group (×25); (C) experimental group (×150); (D) control group (×150); (E) experimental group (×1,000); (F) control group (×1,000); (G) experimental group (×1,000); (H) control group (×1,000).

• 

  Fig. 4 Experimental group implant EDS spectrum showed magnification.

• 

  Fig. 5 Control group implant EDS spectrum. Ti and O were observed in SLA-treated implant surfaces.

• 

  Fig. 6 Micro-CT three-dimensional images using the AutoCAD 2011 (Autodesk, San Rafael, CA, USA). (A) Experimental; (B) control. The experimental group was observed 10.92 mm, 0.62 mm. The control group was observed 6.75 mm, 0.71 mm. These images were selected to present contact layer of laser-treated surface as it is not the average but the median value.

Reference

1. Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindström J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981; 52:155–170.

2. Roberts WE. Fundamental principles of bone physiology, metabolism and loading. In : Naert I, van Steengerghe D, Worthington P, editors. Osseointegration in oral rehabilitation. Carol Stream, IL: Quintessence;1993. p. 163–164.

3. Carlsson L, Röstlund T, Albrektsson B, Albrektsson T. Removal torques for polished and rough titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1988; 3:21–24.

4. Gotfredsen K, Nimb L, Hjörting-Hansen E, Jensen JS, Holmén A. Histomorphometric and removal torque analysis for TiO2-blasted titanium implants. An experimental study on dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1992; 3:77–84.

5. Cordioli G, Majzoub Z, Piattelli A, Scarano A. Removal torque and histomorphometric investigation of 4 different titanium surfaces: an experimental study in the rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15:668–674.

6. Klokkevold PR, Nishimura RD, Adachi M, Caputo A. Osseointegration enhanced by chemical etching of the titanium surface. A torque removal study in the rabbit. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997; 8:442–447.

7. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B, Krol JJ. A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995; 6:24–30.

8. Ferguson SJ, Langhoff JD, Voelter K, von Rechenberg B, Scharnweber D, Bierbaum S, Schnabelrauch M, Kautz AR, Frauchiger VM, Mueller TL, van Lenthe GH, Schlottig F. Biomechanical comparison of different surface modifications for dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23:1037–1046.

9. Marin C, Bonfante EA, Granato R, Suzuki M, Granjeiro JM, Coelho PG. The effect of alterations on resorbable blasting media processed implant surfaces on early bone healing: a study in rabbits. Implant Dent. 2011; 20:167–177.

10. Kang SH, Cho SA. Comparison of removal torques for lasertreated titanium implants with anodized implants. J Craniofac Surg. 2011; 22:1491–1495.

11. Hofmann AA, Bloebaum RD, Bachus KN. Progression of human bone ingrowth into porous-coated implants. Rate of bone ingrowth in humans. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997; 68:161–166.

12. Hall J, Miranda-Burgos P, Sennerby L. Stimulation of directed bone growth at oxidized titanium implants by macroscopic grooves: an in vivo study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005; 7:S76–S82.

13. Mangano C, Perrotti V, Iezzi G, Scarano A, Mangano F, Piattelli A. Bone response to modified titanium surface implants in nonhuman primates (Papio ursinus) and humans: histological evaluation. J Oral Implantol. 2008; 34:17–24.

14. Schwartz Z, Martin JY, Dean DD, Simpson J, Cochran DL, Boyan BD. Effect of titanium surface roughness on chondrocyte proliferation, matrix production, and differentiation depends on the state of cell maturation. J Biomed Mater Res. 1996; 30:145–155.

15. Hallgren C, Reimers H, Chakarov D, Gold J, Wennerberg A. An in vivo study of bone response to implants topographically modified by laser micromachining. Biomaterials. 2003; 24:701–710.

16. Gaggl A, Schultes G, Müller WD, Kärcher H. Scanning electron microscopical analysis of laser-treated titanium implant surfaces--a comparative study. Biomaterials. 2000; 21:1067–1073.

17. Cho SA, Jung SK. A removal torque of the laser-treated titanium implants in rabbit tibia. Biomaterials. 2003; 24:4859–4863.

18. Kang SH, Cho SA. Comparison of removal torques for lasertreated titanium implants with anodized implants. J Craniofac Surg. 2011; 22:1491–1495.

19. Palmquist A, Emanuelsson L, Brånemark R, Thomsen P. Biomechanical, histological and ultrastructural analyses of laser micro- and nano-structured titanium implant after 6 months in rabbit. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2011; 97:289–298.

20. Wie H, Herø H, Solheim T. Hot isostatic pressing-processed hydroxyapatite-coated titanium implants: light microscopic and scanning electron microscopy investigations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13:837–844.

21. Han CH, Johansson CB, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Quantitative and qualitative investigations of surface enlarged titanium and titanium alloy implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998; 9:1–10.

22. Sennerby L, Thomsen P, Ericson LE. Early tissue response to titanium implants inserted in rabbit cortical bone. Part I. Light microscopic obserrvations. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1993; 4:240–250.

23. Rong M, Zhou L, Gou Z, Zhu A, Zhou D. The early osseointegration of the laser-treated and acid-etched dental implants surface: an experimental study in rabbits. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2009; 20:1721–1728.