The bone response of oxidized bioactive and non-bioactive titanium implants.

A number of experimental and clinical data on so-called oxidized implants have reported promising outcomes. However, little is investigated on the role of the surface oxide properties and osseointegration mechanism of the oxidized implant. Sul [On the Bone Response to Oxidized Titanium Implants: The role of microporous structure and chemical composition of the surface oxide in enhanced osseointegration (thesis). Göteborg: Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, University of Göteborg, Sweden; 2002; Biomaterials 2003; 24: 3893-3907] recently proposed two action mechanisms of osseointegration of oxidized implants, i.e. mechanical interlocking through bone growth in pores/other surface irregularities (1) and biochemical bonding (2). The aim of the present study is two-fold: (i) investigating the role of the implant surface chemistry on bone responses; (ii) investigating the validity of the biochemical bonding theory of the oxidized, bioactive bone implants with specific implant surface chemistry. Two groups of oxidized implants were prepared using micro arc oxidation process and were then inserted in rabbit bone. One group consisted of magnesium ion incorporated implants (MgTiO implant), the other consisted of TiO2 stoichiometry implants (TiO implant). Surface oxide properties of the implants were characterized with various surface analytic techniques. After 6 weeks of follow up, the mean peak values of removal torque of Mg implants dominated significantly over TiO implants (p < or = 0.0001). Bonding failure generally occurred in the bone away from the bone to implant interface for the MgTiO implant and mainly occurred at the bone to implant interface for the TiO implant that consisted mainly of TiO2 chemistry and significantly rougher surface as compared to the MgTiO implant. Between bone and the Mg- incorporated implant surface, ionic movements and ion concentrations gradient were detected. The current in vivo experimental data may provide positive evidence for the surface chemistry-mediated biochemical bonding theory of oxidized bioactive implants. However, the present study does not rule out potential synergy effects of the oxide thickness, micro-porous structure, crystal structure and surface roughness on improvements of bone responses to oxidized bioactive implants.

[1]  L. Hench,et al.  Properties of bioactive glasses and glass-ceramics , 1998 .

[2]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Qualitative and quantitative observations of bone tissue reactions to anodised implants. , 2002, Biomaterials.

[3]  L. Sennerby,et al.  Histology of retrieved immediately and early loaded oxidized implants: light microscopic observations after 5 to 9 months of loading in the posterior mandible. , 2003, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[4]  A. Clark,et al.  The influence of surface chemistry on implant interface histology: a theoretical basis for implant materials selection. , 1976, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[5]  B. Kasemo,et al.  Bone response to surface modified titanium implants: studies on electropolished implants with different oxide thicknesses and morphology. , 1994, Biomaterials.

[6]  Y. Sul,et al.  Biomechanical measurements of calcium-incorporated oxidized implants in rabbit bone: effect of calcium surface chemistry of a novel implant. , 2004, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[7]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Oxidized titanium screws coated with calcium ions and their performance in rabbit bone. , 2002, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[8]  A. Wennerberg,et al.  Histologic evaluation of bone response to oxidized and turned titanium micro-implants in human jawbone. , 2003, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  Xiaolong Zhu,et al.  In vivo histological response to anodized and anodized/hydrothermally treated titanium implants. , 2003, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[10]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  A 1-year follow-up of implants of differing surface roughness placed in rabbit bone. , 1997, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[11]  Jai-Young Koak,et al.  Improved biological performance of Ti implants due to surface modification by micro-arc oxidation. , 2004, Biomaterials.

[12]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Optimum surface properties of oxidized implants for reinforcement of osseointegration: surface chemistry, oxide thickness, porosity, roughness, and crystal structure. , 2005, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[13]  Y. Sul.  On the bone response to oxidized titanium implants. The role of microporous structure and chemical composition of the surface oxide in enhanced osseointegration , 2002 .

[14]  L L Hench,et al.  Direct chemical bond of bioactive glass-ceramic materials to bone and muscle. , 1973, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[15]  T Albrektsson,et al.  Experimental study of turned and grit-blasted screw-shaped implants with special emphasis on effects of blasting material and surface topography. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[16]  P Ducheyne,et al.  Bioactive ceramics: the effect of surface reactivity on bone formation and bone cell function. , 1999, Biomaterials.

[17]  H. Ishizawa,et al.  Mechanical and histological investigation of hydrothermally treated and untreated anodic titanium oxide films containing Ca and P. , 1995, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[18]  P. N. Aza,et al.  Mechanism of bone-like formation on a bioactive implant in vivo. , 2003, Biomaterials.

[19]  Y. Sul,et al.  The significance of the surface properties of oxidized titanium to the bone response: special emphasis on potential biochemical bonding of oxidized titanium implant. , 2003, Biomaterials.

[20]  A. Cigada,et al.  In vitro and in vivo behaviour of Ca- and P-enriched anodized titanium. , 1999, Biomaterials.

[21]  T Albrektsson,et al.  The electrochemical oxide growth behaviour on titanium in acid and alkaline electrolytes. , 2001, Medical engineering & physics.

[22]  Ann Wennerberg,et al.  Resonance frequency and removal torque analysis of implants with turned and anodized surface oxides. , 2002, Clinical oral implants research.

[23]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Characteristics of the surface oxides on turned and electrochemically oxidized pure titanium implants up to dielectric breakdown: the oxide thickness, micropore configurations, surface roughness, crystal structure and chemical composition. , 2002, Biomaterials.

[24]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Bone reactions to oxidized titanium implants with electrochemical anion sulphuric acid and phosphoric acid incorporation. , 2002, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[25]  Jonathan Black,et al.  Handbook of Biomaterial Properties , 1998, Springer US.

[26]  L Sennerby,et al.  Histologic evaluation of the bone integration of TiO(2) blasted and turned titanium microimplants in humans. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[27]  T Albrektsson,et al.  Oxidized implants and their influence on the bone response , 2001, Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine.