A removal torque of the laser-treated titanium implants in rabbit tibia.

The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the significance of different surface textures by comparison of the removal forces for laser-treated and machined titanium screw 8 weeks after the installation in rabbit tibia. A total of 14 screw shaped, commercially pure titanium implants with a length of 5 mm, a diameter of 3.75 mm were grouped as follows: Group A: seven implants left as-machined; Group B: seven implants treated with laser method (CSM implant, CSM company, Daegu, Korea) Topographic evaluation was performed with scanning electron microscope (Hitachi S-4200, Japan) to compare the surface structure of laser-treated and machined ones. Installation procedures were done according to Branemark protocol after pre-threading, machined implants were inserted in right tibia metaphysics and laser-treated surface implants were inserted in left ones. Eight weeks post surgically seven rabbits were sacrificed. The implant sites were exposed, and the bone and soft tissues that had formed on top of the implants were carefully removed. Subsequently, the force needed to unscrew the implants (n=14) was measured using a digital torque gauge (Mark-10 corporation, USA). Scanning electron micrographs of the laser-treated and machined control groups demonstrated created a deep and regular honey-comb pattern with small pore, while machined treatment created the typical microscopically grooved and relatively smooth surface characteristic. Eight weeks after implant placement, the average removal torque was 23.58+/-3.71 N cm for the machined implants, 62.57+/-10.44 N cm for the laser-treated implants. The torque measurements yielded statistically significant differences between the machined group and the laser-etched group (p=0.00055) (Wilcoxon's signed-rank test). The laser-treated group achieved higher removal torque values compared to the machined control group.

[1]  Y Zilberman,et al.  Osseous adaptation to continuous loading of rigid endosseous implants. , 1984, American journal of orthodontics.

[2]  S. T. Picraux,et al.  Tailored Surface Modification by Ion Implantation and Laser Treatment , 1984, Science.

[3]  S D Cook,et al.  The effect of surface macrotexture and hydroxylapatite coating on the mechanical strengths and histologic profiles of titanium implant materials. , 1987, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[4]  D. Brunette,et al.  The effects of implant surface topography on the behavior of cells. , 1988, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[5]  B D Boyan,et al.  Role of material surfaces in regulating bone and cartilage cell response. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[6]  T Albrektsson,et al.  Integration of screw implants in the rabbit: a 1-year follow-up of removal torque of titanium implants. , 1987, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[7]  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.

[8]  A Scarano,et al.  Removal torque and histomorphometric investigation of 4 different titanium surfaces: an experimental study in the rabbit tibia. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  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.

[10]  H. Aro,et al.  Pore diameter of more than 100 μm is not requisite for bone ingrowth in rabbits , 2001 .

[11]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Torque and histomorphometric evaluation of c.p. titanium screws blasted with 25- and 75-microns-sized particles of Al2O3. , 1996, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[12]  D. Cochran,et al.  Attachment and Growth of Periodontal Cells on Smooth and Rough Titanium. , 1994, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[13]  W. Müller,et al.  The improvement of adhesion of polymer on titanium surface after treatment with TEA-CO2 laser irradiation , 1994 .

[14]  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.

[15]  B. Boyan,et al.  The role of implant surface characteristics in the healing of bone. , 1996, Critical reviews in oral biology and medicine : an official publication of the American Association of Oral Biologists.

[16]  G Schultes,et al.  Scanning electron microscopical analysis of laser-treated titanium implant surfaces--a comparative study. , 2000, Biomaterials.