J Korean Acad Prosthodont.  2019 Oct;57(4):335-341. 10.4047/jkap.2019.57.4.335.

Comparison of removal torque of dual-acid etched and single-acid etched implants in rabbit tibias

• Kim JJ
• Cho SA

• KMID: 2461139
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2019.57.4.335

Abstract

PURPOSE
Chemically strong-acids (HF and HCl/Hâ‚‚SOâ‚„) dual etching implant surfaces have higher strengths of osseointegration than machined implant surfaces. However, the dual acid treatment deteriorates the physical properties of the titanium by weakening the fatigue resistance of the implant and causing microcracks. The removal torque comparison between the dual-acid etched (hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, HS) and single-acid etched implants (hydrochloric acid, H) could reveal the efficiency of implant surface acid treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Nine 3.75 × 4 mm dual-acid etched SLA implants and nine single-acid etched SLA implants were inserted into New Zealand rabbit tibias. After 10 days, removal torque, roughness, and wetting angle were measured.
RESULTS
Mean removal torque values were as follows: Mean removal torque were 9.94 Ncm for HS group and 9.96 Ncm for H group (P=.995). Mean surface roughness value were 0.93 µm for HS group and 0.84 µm for H group (P=.170). Root mean square roughness (RSq) values were 1.21 µm for HS group and 1.08 µm for H group (P=.294), and mean wetting angle values were 99° for HS group and 98° for H group (P=.829). Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the removal torques, roughness, or wetting angles of the two groups.
CONCLUSION
In this experiment, we found no significant difference in removal torque, roughness, or wetting angle between dual-acid etched and single-acid etched implants.

Keyword

Osseointegration; Biocompatibility; Implant surface treatment; Biomechanical evaluation

MeSH Terms

Fatigue
Osseointegration
Rabbits
Sulfur
Tibia*
Titanium
Torque*
Sulfur
Titanium

Reference

1. Brånemark PI, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson BO, Lindström J, Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969; 3:81–100.

2. van Steenberghe D, Jacobs R, Desnyder M, Maffei G, Quirynen M. The relative impact of local and endogenous patientrelated factors on implant failure up to the abutment stage. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002; 13:617–622.

3. Wennerberg A, Hallgren C, Johansson C, Danelli S. A histomorphometric evaluation of screw-shaped implants each prepared with two surface roughnesses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998; 9:11–19.

4. Vervaeke S, Collaert B, De Bruyn H. The effect of implant surface modifications on survival and bone loss of immediately loaded implants in the edentulous mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28:1352–1357.

5. Souza FA, Queiroz TP, Guastaldi AC, Garcia-Júnior IR, Magro-Filho O, Nishioka RS, Sisti KE, Sonoda CK. Comparative in vivo study of commercially pure Ti implants with surfaces modified by laser with and without silicate deposition: biomechanical and scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013; 101:76–84.

6. Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S, Fiorellini JP, Fox CH, Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res. 1991; 25:889–902.

7. Daculsi G, Laboux O, Malard O, Weiss P. Current state of the art of biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramics. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2003; 14:195–200.

8. Geurs NC, Jeffcoat RL, McGlumphy EA, Reddy MS, Jeffcoat MK. Influence of implant geometry and surface characteristics on progressive osseointegration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17:811–815.

9. Chang YL, Lew D, Park JB, Keller JC. Biomechanical and morphometric analysis of hydroxyapatite-coated implants with varying crystallinity. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999; 57:1096–1108.

10. 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.

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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Ivanoff CJ, Hallgren C, Widmark G, Sennerby L, Wennerberg A. Histologic evaluation of the bone integration of TiO(2) blasted and turned titanium microimplants in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12:128–134.

15. Massaro C, Rotolo P, De Riccardis F, Milella E, Napoli A, Wieland M, Textor M, Spencer ND, Brunette DM. Comparative investigation of the surface properties of commercial titanium dental implants. Part I: chemical composition. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2002; 13:535–548.

16. Klokkevold PR, Johnson P, Dadgostari S, Caputo A, Davies JE, Nishimura RD. Early endosseous integration enhanced by dual acid etching of titanium: a torque removal study in the rabbit. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12:350–357.

17. Cho SA, Park KT. The removal torque of titanium screw inserted in rabbit tibia treated by dual acid etching. Biomaterials. 2003; 24:3611–3617.

18. Trisi P, Marcato C, Todisco M. Bone-to-implant apposition with machined and MTX microtextured implant surfaces in human sinus grafts. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003; 23:427–437.

19. He FM, Yang GL, Zhao SF, Cheng ZP. Mechanical and histomorphometric evaluations of rough titanium implants treated with hydrofluoric acid/nitric acid solution in rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26:115–122.

20. Zareidoost A, Yousefpour M, Ghaseme B, Amanzadeh A. The relationship of surface roughness and cell response of chemical surface modification of titanium. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2012; 23:1479–1488.

21. Roccuzzo M, Bunino M, Prioglio F, Bianchi SD. Early loading of sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) implants: a prospective split-mouth comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12:572–578.

22. Cochran DL, Buser D, ten Bruggenkate CM, Weingart D, Taylor TM, Bernard JP, Peters F, Simpson JP. The use of reduced healing times on ITI implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface: early results from clinical trials on ITI SLA implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002; 13:144–153.

23. Park JY, Davies JE. Red blood cell and platelet interactions with titanium implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000; 11:530–539.

24. Szmukler-Moncler S, Bischof M, Nedir R, Ermrich M. Titanium hydride and hydrogen concentration in acid-etched commercially pure titanium and titanium alloy implants: a comparative analysis of five implant systems. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21:944–950.

25. Yokoyama K, Ichikawa T, Murakami H, Miyamoto Y, Asaoka K. Fracture mechanisms of retrieved titanium screw thread in dental implant. Biomaterials. 2002; 23:2459–2465.

26. van Kooten TG, Schakenraad JM, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Influence of substratum wettability on the strength of adhesion of human fibroblasts. Biomaterials. 1992; 13:897–904.

27. Yanagisawa I, Sakuma H, Shimura M, Wakamatsu Y, Yanagisawa S, Sairenji E. Effects of “wettability” of biomaterials on culture cells. J Oral Implantol. 1989; 15:168–177.

28. Kilpadi DV, Lemons JE. Surface energy characterization of unalloyed titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res. 1994; 28:1419–1425.

29. Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Eriksson A, Lindström J. The preformed autologous bone graft. An experimental study in the rabbit. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1978; 12:215–223.

30. 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.

31. Buser D, Nydegger T, Oxland T, Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Hirt HP, Snétivy D, Nolte LP. Interface shear strength of titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a biomechanical study in the maxilla of miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999; 45:75–83.

32. Roccuzzo M, Wilson T. A prospective study evaluating a protocol for 6 weeks’ loading of SLA implants in the posterior maxilla: one year results. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002; 13:502–507.

33. Ponsonnet L, Reybier K, Jaffrezic N, Comte V, Lagneau C, Lissac M, Martelet C. Relationship between surface properties (roughness, wettability) of titanium and titanium alloys and cell behaviour. Mater Sci Eng C. 2003; 23:551–560.

34. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B. Bone tissue response to commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and coarse particles of aluminum oxide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11:38–45.

35. Webb K, Hlady V, Tresco PA. Relative importance of surface wettability and charged functional groups on NIH 3T3 fibroblast attachment, spreading, and cytoskeletal organization. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998; 41:422–430.

36. Zhao G, Schwartz Z, Wieland M, Rupp F, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Cochran DL, Boyan BD. High surface energy enhances cell response to titanium substrate microstructure. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005; 74:49–58.

37. Boyan BD, Dean DD, Lohmann CH, Cochran DL, Sylvia VL, Schwartz Z. The titanium-bone cell interface in vitro: The role of the surface in promoting osteointegration. In : Donald MB, Pentti T, Marcus T, editors. Titanium in medicine. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer;2001. p. 561–585.

38. Szmukler-Moncler S, Reingewirtz Y, Weber H-P. Bone response to early loading: The effect of surface state. In : Davidovitch Z, Norton LA, editors. Biological mechanisms of tooth movement and craniofacial adaptation. Boston: Harvard Society for the Advancement of Orthodontics;1996. p. 611–616.

39. Taborelli M, Jobin M, François P, Vaudaux P, Tonetti M, Szmukler-Moncler S, Simpson JP, Descouts P. Influence of surface treatments developed for oral implants on the physical and biological properties of titanium. (I) Surface characterization. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997; 8:208–216.

40. Donachie Junior MJ. Titanium: A technical guide. 2nd ed. Materials Park: ASM International;2000. p. 85–94.

41. Zhang F, Yang GL, He FM, Zhang LJ, Zhao SF. Cell response of titanium implant with a roughened surface containing titanium hydride: an in vitro study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68:1131–1139.