Residual aluminum oxide on the surface of titanium implants has no effect on osseointegration.
The cleanliness of titanium dental implants surfaces is considered to be an important requirement for achieving osseointegration, and it has been hypothesized that the presence of inorganic contaminants could lead to lack of clinical success. Aluminum ions are suspected to impair bone formation by a possible competitive action to calcium. The objective of the present study was to describe the effects of residual aluminum oxide particles on the implant surface on the integration of titanium dental implants as compared to decontaminated implants in a rabbit experimental model. Threaded screw-shaped machined grade 3 c.p. titanium dental implants, produced with high-precision equipment, were used in this study. The implants were sandblasted with 100-120 microm Al2O3 particles at a 5atm pressure for 1min, then 24 implants (control implants) underwent ASTM F 86-68 decontamination process in an ultrasonic bath. The other 24 implants (test implants) were washed in saline solution for 15min. Both test and control implants were air-dried and sterilized at 120 degrees C for 30min. After sterilization the implants were inserted into the tibiae (two test and two control implants in each rabbit). Twelve New Zealand white mature male rabbits were used in this study. The protocol of the study was approved by the Ethical Committee of our University. No complications or deaths occurred in the postoperative period. All animals were euthanized, with an overdose of intravenous pentobarbital, after 4 weeks. A total of 48 implants were retrieved. The images were analyzed for quantitation of percentage of surface covered by inorganic particles, bone-implant contact, multinucleated cells or osteoclasts in contact with the implant surface and multinucleated cells or osteoclasts found 3mm from the implant surface. The differences in the percentages between the two groups have been evaluated with the analysis of variance. The implant surface covered by inorganic particles on test implants was significantly higher than that of control implants (p=0.0000). No statistically significant differences were found in the bone-implant contact percentages of test and control implants (p=0.377). No statistically significant differences were found in the number of multinucleated cells and osteoclasts in contact with the implant surface (p=0.304), and at a distance of 3mm from the implant surface (p=0.362). In conclusion, our histological results do not provide evidence to support the hypothesis that residual aluminum oxide particles on the implant surface could affect the osseointegration of titanium dental implants.
Piattelli
Adriano
A
Dental School University of Chieti, Via F Sciucchi 63, Chieti 66100, Italy. apiattelli@unich.it
Degidi
Marco
M
Paolantonio
Michele
M
Mangano
Carlo
C
Scarano
Antonio
A
D000537:Aluminum Oxide / Q000737:chemistry*; D000818:Animals; D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D015921:Dental Implants; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D008422:Materials Testing; D008853:Microscopy; D016348:Osseointegration; D011817:Rabbits; D013696:Temperature; D013997:Time Factors; D014025:Titanium / Q000737:chemistry*; D014465:Ultrasonics
D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D015921:Dental Implants; D014025:Titanium; D000537:Aluminum Oxide