The evaluation of osseointegration of dental implant surface with different size of TiO 2 nanotube in rats

With the development of nanotechnology, many researches have shown that nanometer-scaled materials especially TiO2 nanotube have a positive effect on cellular behavior and surface characteristics of implant, which are considered to be crucial factors in osseointegration. However, it has not yet been verified which nanotube size is effective in osseointegration in vivo. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of implant surface-treated with different size of TiO2 nanotubes on osseointegration in rat femur. The customized implants (threaded and nonthreaded type), surface-treated with different diameter of TiO2 nanotubes (30 nm, 50 nm, 70 nm, and 100nm nanotube), were placed on both sides of the femur of 50 male Sprague-Dawley rats (6 weeks old). Rats were sacrificed at 2 and 6 weeks following surgery; then the specimens were collected by perfusion fixation and the osseointegration of implants was evaluated by radiographic and histologic analyses and removal torque value test. The mean of bone area (%) and the mean of removal torque were different in each group, indicating that the difference in TiO2 nanotube size may influence new bone formation and osseointegration in rats.

[1]  P. Branemark,et al.  Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. , 1977, Scandinavian journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery. Supplementum.

[2]  M. Glimcher,et al.  Experimental osteonecrosis of the femoral head in adult rabbits. , 1978, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[3]  P I Brånemark,et al.  A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. , 1981, International journal of oral surgery.

[4]  Charles L. Weber,et al.  A Mathematical Model , 1987 .

[5]  P. Branemark,et al.  Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. , 1990, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[6]  T Albrektsson,et al.  A removal torque and histomorphometric study of commercially pure niobium and titanium implants in rabbit bone. , 1991, Clinical oral implants research.

[7]  D Buser,et al.  Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. , 1991, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[8]  B. Boyan,et al.  Underlying mechanisms at the bone–biomaterial interface. , 1994, Journal of cellular biochemistry.

[9]  N. Karimbux,et al.  A new animal model for molecular biological analysis of the implant-tissue interface: spatial expression of type XII collagen mRNA around a titanium oral implant. , 1995, The Journal of oral implantology.

[10]  Ann Wennerberg,et al.  A histomorghometric study of screw‐shaped and removal torque titanium implants with three different surface topographies , 1995 .

[11]  L. Skovgaard,et al.  Anchorage of TiO2-blasted, HA-coated, and machined implants: an experimental study with rabbits. , 1995, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[12]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. , 1995, Clinical oral implants research.

[13]  B. Boyan,et al.  Underlying mechanisms at the bone-surface interface during regeneration. , 1997, Journal of periodontal research.

[14]  C. S. Chen,et al.  Geometric control of cell life and death. , 1997, Science.

[15]  N. Fujii,et al.  A histological study on tissue responses to titanium implantation in rat maxilla: the process of epithelial regeneration and bone reaction. , 1998, Journal of periodontology.

[16]  L. Nolte,et al.  Interface shear strength of titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a biomechanical study in the maxilla of miniature pigs. , 1999, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[17]  L. Bonewald,et al.  Implant Surface Characteristics Modulate Differentiation Behavior of Cells in the Osteoblastic Lineage , 1999, Advances in dental research.

[18]  S. Hansson,et al.  The relation between surface roughness and interfacial shear strength for bone-anchored implants. A mathematical model. , 1999, Journal of biomechanics.

[19]  T. Webster,et al.  Enhanced functions of osteoblasts on nanophase ceramics. , 2000, Biomaterials.

[20]  N. Fujii,et al.  Tissue response to titanium implants in the rat maxilla: ultrastructural and histochemical observations of the bone-titanium interface. , 2000, Journal of periodontology.

[21]  C. Sukotjo,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Osseous Implants Having Different Surface Topographies in Rats , 2000, Journal of dental research.

[22]  A Wennerberg,et al.  Determining optimal surface roughness of TiO(2) blasted titanium implant material for attachment, proliferation and differentiation of cells derived from human mandibular alveolar bone. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[23]  L. Cooper,et al.  Evaluation of a predictive model for implant surface topography effects on early osseointegration in the rat tibia model. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[24]  G. Kästle,et al.  Oxidation-Resistant Gold-55 Clusters , 2002, Science.

[25]  Matthew J Dalby,et al.  Nucleus alignment and cell signaling in fibroblasts: response to a micro-grooved topography. , 2003, Experimental cell research.

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

[27]  S. Affrossman,et al.  Cell response to nano-islands produced by polymer demixing: a brief review. , 2004, IEE proceedings. Nanobiotechnology.

[28]  Xingdong Zhang,et al.  Preparation of bioactive titanium metal via anodic oxidation treatment. , 2004, Biomaterials.

[29]  A. Curtis,et al.  Rapid fibroblast adhesion to 27nm high polymer demixed nano-topography. , 2004, Biomaterials.

[30]  Sungho Jin,et al.  Growth of nano-scale hydroxyapatite using chemically treated titanium oxide nanotubes. , 2005, Biomaterials.

[31]  Tomas Albrektsson,et al.  The bone response of oxidized bioactive and non-bioactive titanium implants. , 2005, Biomaterials.

[32]  J. Macák,et al.  Self-organized nanotubular oxide layers on Ti-6Al-7Nb and Ti-6Al-4V formed by anodization in NH4F solutions. , 2005, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[33]  Ann Wennerberg,et al.  The impact of oral implants - past and future, 1966-2042. , 2005, Journal.

[34]  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.

[35]  Sungho Jin,et al.  Titanium oxide nanotubes with controlled morphology for enhanced bone growth , 2006 .

[36]  Sungho Jin,et al.  Significantly accelerated osteoblast cell growth on aligned TiO2 nanotubes. , 2006, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[37]  S. Sen,et al.  Matrix Elasticity Directs Stem Cell Lineage Specification , 2006, Cell.

[38]  Joachim P Spatz,et al.  Lateral spacing of integrin ligands influences cell spreading and focal adhesion assembly. , 2006, European journal of cell biology.

[39]  Patrik Schmuki,et al.  Nanosize and vitality: TiO2 nanotube diameter directs cell fate. , 2007, Nano letters.

[40]  P. Layrolle,et al.  Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. , 2007, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[41]  Nikolaj Gadegaard,et al.  Nanotopographical control of human osteoprogenitor differentiation. , 2007, Current stem cell research & therapy.

[42]  Sungho Jin,et al.  Enhanced cellular mobility guided by TiO2 nanotube surfaces. , 2008, Nano letters.

[43]  Victoria Franke Stenport,et al.  Evaluations of bone tissue integration to pure and alloyed titanium implants. , 2008, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[44]  Lyndon F Cooper,et al.  Advancing dental implant surface technology--from micron- to nanotopography. , 2008, Biomaterials.

[45]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  The roles of surface chemistry and topography in the strength and rate of osseointegration of titanium implants in bone. , 2009, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[46]  Emeka Nkenke,et al.  In vivo evaluation of anodic TiO2 nanotubes: an experimental study in the pig. , 2009, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[47]  Sungho Jin,et al.  Stem cell fate dictated solely by altered nanotube dimension , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[48]  Patrik Schmuki,et al.  TiO2 nanotube surfaces: 15 nm--an optimal length scale of surface topography for cell adhesion and differentiation. , 2009, Small.

[49]  Sungho Jin,et al.  Improved bone-forming functionality on diameter-controlled TiO(2) nanotube surface. , 2009, Acta biomaterialia.

[50]  Lars Rasmusson,et al.  Titanium dioxide nanotubes enhance bone bonding in vivo. , 2009, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[51]  Matthew J. Dalby,et al.  Nanotopographical Control of Stem Cell Differentiation , 2010, Journal of tissue engineering.

[52]  C. Friedrich,et al.  Wettability changes of TiO2 nanotube surfaces , 2011, Nanotechnology.