Osteointegrative and microgeometric comparison between micro-blasted and alumina blasting/acid etching on grade II and V titanium alloys (Ti-6Al-4V)

Rodrigo Granato, Estevam A. Bonfante, Arthur Castellano, Rehan Khan, Ryo Jimbo, Charles Marin, Sara Morsi, Lukasz Witek, Paulo Coelho

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This study evaluated the effect of alumina-blasted/acid-etched (AB/AE) or microabrasive blasting (C3-Microblasted) surface treatment on the osseointegration of commercially-pure Ti (grade II) and Ti-6Al-4V alloy (grade V) implants compared to as-machined surfaces. Surface characterization was performed by scanning electron microscopy and optical interferometry (IFM) to determine roughness parameters (Sa and Sq, n = 3 per group). One-hundred forty-four implants were placed in the radii of 12 beagle dogs, for histological (n = 72, bone-to-implant contact – BIC and bone-area-fraction occupancy -BAFO) and torque to interface failure test at 3 and 6 weeks (n = 72). SEM and IFM revealed a significant increase in surface texture for AB/AE and C3-Microblasted surfaces compared to machined surface, regardless of titanium substrate. Torque-to-interface failure test showed significant increase in values from as-machined to AB/AE and to C3-Microblasted. Considering time in vivo, alloy grade, and surface treatment, the C3-microblasted presented higher mean BIC values relative to AB/AE and machined surfaces for both alloy types. BAFO levels were significantly higher for both textured surfaces groups relative to the machined group at 3 weeks, but differences were not significant between the three surfaces for each alloy type at 6 weeks. Surface treatment resulted in roughness that improved osseointegration in Grade II and V titanium substrates.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)288-295
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
Volume97
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2019

Fingerprint

Aluminum Oxide
Blasting
Titanium alloys
Etching
Alumina
Acids
imidazole mustard
Surface treatment
Titanium
Interferometry
Bone
Torque
Surface roughness
Scanning electron microscopy
titanium alloy (TiAl6V4)
Substrates
Textures

Keywords

  • Commercially pure titanium
  • Dental implant
  • Osseointegration
  • Surface treatment
  • Titanium alloy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biomaterials
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Mechanics of Materials

Cite this

Osteointegrative and microgeometric comparison between micro-blasted and alumina blasting/acid etching on grade II and V titanium alloys (Ti-6Al-4V). / Granato, Rodrigo; Bonfante, Estevam A.; Castellano, Arthur; Khan, Rehan; Jimbo, Ryo; Marin, Charles; Morsi, Sara; Witek, Lukasz; Coelho, Paulo.

In: Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, Vol. 97, 01.09.2019, p. 288-295.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a62fccb5ad784718a4b49a230a09a7bf,
title = "Osteointegrative and microgeometric comparison between micro-blasted and alumina blasting/acid etching on grade II and V titanium alloys (Ti-6Al-4V)",
abstract = "This study evaluated the effect of alumina-blasted/acid-etched (AB/AE) or microabrasive blasting (C3-Microblasted) surface treatment on the osseointegration of commercially-pure Ti (grade II) and Ti-6Al-4V alloy (grade V) implants compared to as-machined surfaces. Surface characterization was performed by scanning electron microscopy and optical interferometry (IFM) to determine roughness parameters (Sa and Sq, n = 3 per group). One-hundred forty-four implants were placed in the radii of 12 beagle dogs, for histological (n = 72, bone-to-implant contact – BIC and bone-area-fraction occupancy -BAFO) and torque to interface failure test at 3 and 6 weeks (n = 72). SEM and IFM revealed a significant increase in surface texture for AB/AE and C3-Microblasted surfaces compared to machined surface, regardless of titanium substrate. Torque-to-interface failure test showed significant increase in values from as-machined to AB/AE and to C3-Microblasted. Considering time in vivo, alloy grade, and surface treatment, the C3-microblasted presented higher mean BIC values relative to AB/AE and machined surfaces for both alloy types. BAFO levels were significantly higher for both textured surfaces groups relative to the machined group at 3 weeks, but differences were not significant between the three surfaces for each alloy type at 6 weeks. Surface treatment resulted in roughness that improved osseointegration in Grade II and V titanium substrates.",
keywords = "Commercially pure titanium, Dental implant, Osseointegration, Surface treatment, Titanium alloy",
author = "Rodrigo Granato and Bonfante, {Estevam A.} and Arthur Castellano and Rehan Khan and Ryo Jimbo and Charles Marin and Sara Morsi and Lukasz Witek and Paulo Coelho",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.05.026",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "97",
pages = "288--295",
journal = "Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials",
issn = "1751-6161",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Osteointegrative and microgeometric comparison between micro-blasted and alumina blasting/acid etching on grade II and V titanium alloys (Ti-6Al-4V)

AU - Granato, Rodrigo

AU - Bonfante, Estevam A.

AU - Castellano, Arthur

AU - Khan, Rehan

AU - Jimbo, Ryo

AU - Marin, Charles

AU - Morsi, Sara

AU - Witek, Lukasz

AU - Coelho, Paulo

PY - 2019/9/1

Y1 - 2019/9/1

N2 - This study evaluated the effect of alumina-blasted/acid-etched (AB/AE) or microabrasive blasting (C3-Microblasted) surface treatment on the osseointegration of commercially-pure Ti (grade II) and Ti-6Al-4V alloy (grade V) implants compared to as-machined surfaces. Surface characterization was performed by scanning electron microscopy and optical interferometry (IFM) to determine roughness parameters (Sa and Sq, n = 3 per group). One-hundred forty-four implants were placed in the radii of 12 beagle dogs, for histological (n = 72, bone-to-implant contact – BIC and bone-area-fraction occupancy -BAFO) and torque to interface failure test at 3 and 6 weeks (n = 72). SEM and IFM revealed a significant increase in surface texture for AB/AE and C3-Microblasted surfaces compared to machined surface, regardless of titanium substrate. Torque-to-interface failure test showed significant increase in values from as-machined to AB/AE and to C3-Microblasted. Considering time in vivo, alloy grade, and surface treatment, the C3-microblasted presented higher mean BIC values relative to AB/AE and machined surfaces for both alloy types. BAFO levels were significantly higher for both textured surfaces groups relative to the machined group at 3 weeks, but differences were not significant between the three surfaces for each alloy type at 6 weeks. Surface treatment resulted in roughness that improved osseointegration in Grade II and V titanium substrates.

AB - This study evaluated the effect of alumina-blasted/acid-etched (AB/AE) or microabrasive blasting (C3-Microblasted) surface treatment on the osseointegration of commercially-pure Ti (grade II) and Ti-6Al-4V alloy (grade V) implants compared to as-machined surfaces. Surface characterization was performed by scanning electron microscopy and optical interferometry (IFM) to determine roughness parameters (Sa and Sq, n = 3 per group). One-hundred forty-four implants were placed in the radii of 12 beagle dogs, for histological (n = 72, bone-to-implant contact – BIC and bone-area-fraction occupancy -BAFO) and torque to interface failure test at 3 and 6 weeks (n = 72). SEM and IFM revealed a significant increase in surface texture for AB/AE and C3-Microblasted surfaces compared to machined surface, regardless of titanium substrate. Torque-to-interface failure test showed significant increase in values from as-machined to AB/AE and to C3-Microblasted. Considering time in vivo, alloy grade, and surface treatment, the C3-microblasted presented higher mean BIC values relative to AB/AE and machined surfaces for both alloy types. BAFO levels were significantly higher for both textured surfaces groups relative to the machined group at 3 weeks, but differences were not significant between the three surfaces for each alloy type at 6 weeks. Surface treatment resulted in roughness that improved osseointegration in Grade II and V titanium substrates.

KW - Commercially pure titanium

KW - Dental implant

KW - Osseointegration

KW - Surface treatment

KW - Titanium alloy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066147331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85066147331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.05.026

DO - 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.05.026

M3 - Article

C2 - 31146202

AN - SCOPUS:85066147331

VL - 97

SP - 288

EP - 295

JO - Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

JF - Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

SN - 1751-6161

ER -