Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Copy of Osseointegration of Dental Implants

Biomaterials Project Group 10

Val Lomeli

on 19 April 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Copy of Osseointegration of Dental Implants

Osseointegration of Dental Implants: A Review

Components of a Successful Endosseous Titanium Implant
Abstract# 1367: Osseointegration of Dental Implants
Authors: J. Zitterkopf, B. Kim, T. Premaraj
Critiques About the Abstract
Authors did not specify:
Whether the titanium surface was machined (non-modified) or a roughened surface.
What method of HA application?
This study was done in vitro.

1. Titanium Surface
A histomorphometric study on Mongrel male dogs found that a roughened titanium surface provides better osseointegration compared to a smooth surface due to increased surface area (2).

Another radiographic study by
Taba et. al agreed with this finding (3).

2. Sandblasted Titanium Surface
Sandblasted titanium surface has increased surface area which leads to greater osseointegration.

According to Ferguson, sandblasted and acid etched titanium displayed bone density after 8 weeks demonstrating good adherence but was not significantly different in quantity compared to Calcium phosphate. (4)

1. Whang, K (2015).
[PowerPoint slides]

2. Novaes AB, Souza SL, de Oliveria PT, Souza AM.
Histomorphometric analysis of the bone-implant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatments placed side by side in the dog mandible.
Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2002 May-Jun; 17(3):377-83.

3. Taba JM, Novaes AB, Souza SL, Grisi MF, Palioto DB, Pardini LC.
Radiographic evaluation of dental implants with different surface treatment: an experimental study in dogs.
Implant Dent. 2003; 12(3):252-8.

4. Ferguson SJ, Langhoff JD, Voelter K, von Rechenberg B, Schwarnweber 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 Nov-Dec;23(6):1037-46.

5. Junker R, Dimakis A, Thoneick M, Jansen JA.
Effects of implant surface coatings and composition on bone integration: a systematic review.
Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 2009 Sep; 20 Suppl 4:185-206.

6.Al-Hamdan K, Al-Moaber SH, Junker R, Jansen JA.
Effect of implant surface properties on peri-implant bone healing: a histological and histomorphometric study in dogs.
Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 2011 Apr;22(4):399-405.

7. Mescher, Anthony. Junqueira's Basic Histology: Text and Atlas, 13th Edition. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing, 70. VitalBook file.
3. Calcium Phosphate Coated
Evidence supports that CaPO4
coated implants compared to non-coated implants have higher success rates (5).

When compared to gritblasted surfaces there was no significant
difference observed in bone response (6).
Thank you for your time!
Body Design
Surface Design
Thread Profile
Surface Roughness
Surface Chemistry
Improved implant stability
Bone contact
Stress distribution
Implant surface examination with field-emission scanning election microscope
MC3T3 osteoblasts grown on
3 different implant surfaces
Harvested at 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48-hr periods
Rhodamine phalloidin stain for F-actin expression
Fluorescence microscopy used to obtain cell count
Three Implant Surfaces Studied
Titanium surface
Sandblasted titanium surface
Calcium phosphate coated
Modified surface roughness
Ablastive surface
Modified surface chemistry
Additive process
All three implant surface modifications showed
no difference in cell number and actin expression.
Abstract Conclusion
Group 10
Mariam Ahmad
Kristin Aulds
Carlos Bernal
Michelle Gutierrez
Valeria Lomeli
Kristan Rodriguez
Austin Todd
Ai Ton

In conclusion,
A non-modified surface is significantly less effective at osseointegration compared to roughened titanium surface.
Both sandblasted and calcium phosphate coated implants show similar levels of increased osseointegration
Bottom line is increased surface area has a significant effect on the implant osseointegration
Possible delamination from the surface

Final Thoughts
Full transcript