Surface area analysis of dental implants using micro-computed tomography.

OBJECTIVES In this study, we present and evaluate a micro-computed tomography (micro-CT)-based method for the calculation of the potential bone/implant contact area (p-BICA) on the surface of dental implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS For seven commercially available implants (Ankylos implant, Brånemark System, Frialit CELLplus, Replace((R)) Select Tapered, Straumann Solid screw, XiVE S CELLplus, 3i Osseotite XP Threaded Miniplant, the p-BICA surface is determined by means of three-dimensional X-ray computed-tomography and computer-based data processing. Measurements were repeated two times, and the stability and repeatability of the measurement method were evaluated. RESULTS Our analysis revealed a p-BICA of 118 mm(2) for the XiVE S CELLplus implant, 134 mm(2) for the Ankylos, 136 mm(2) for the Frialit CELLplus, 138 mm(2) for the Brånemark System, 139 mm(2) for the Replace((R)), 159 mm(2) for the 3i Osseotite XP and 199 mm(2) for the Straumann Solid screw implant. The measurement method proved to be stable and led to reproducible results. CONCLUSIONS The micro- and macrostructure of dental implants define the surface and the p-BICA. Precise determination of this parameter can be achieved by means of the micro-CT-based method as presented in this study. The value of p-BICA lies in the predictability of industrial design before preclinical and clinical testing. Based on this method, dental implant properties become comparable even if geometrical details are not disclosed by the manufacturer.

[1]  Michel Barquins,et al.  Two dental implants designed for immediate loading: a finite element analysis. , 2002, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[2]  D. Cochran,et al.  A comparison of endosseous dental implant surfaces. , 1999, Journal of periodontology.

[3]  C. Ziegler,et al.  Adsorption/desorption phenomena on pure and Teflon AF-coated titania surfaces studied by dynamic contact angle analysis. , 2002, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[4]  Ignace Naert,et al.  Quality of dental implants. , 2003, International dental journal.

[5]  H. Iplikçioğlu,et al.  Comparative evaluation of the effect of diameter, length and number of implants supporting three-unit fixed partial prostheses on stress distribution in the bone. , 2002, Journal of dentistry.

[6]  S. J. Marshall,et al.  Surface analysis of an original Brånemark implant and three related clones. , 1992, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[7]  H. Chun,et al.  Evaluation of design parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis. , 2002, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[8]  F. Mante,et al.  Evaluating parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis--a two-dimensional comparative study examining the effects of implant diameter, implant shape, and load direction. , 1998, The Journal of oral implantology.

[9]  D Siegele,et al.  Numerical investigations of the influence of implant shape on stress distribution in the jaw bone. , 1989, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[10]  Hom-Lay Wang,et al.  Dental Implant Design and Its Relationship to Long-Term Implant Success , 2003, Implant dentistry.

[11]  J C Keller,et al.  Optimization of surface micromorphology for enhanced osteoblast responses in vitro. , 1993, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[12]  Svatava Konvicková,et al.  Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. , 2004, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[13]  F Rupp,et al.  Roughness induced dynamic changes of wettability of acid etched titanium implant modifications. , 2004, Biomaterials.

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

[15]  J. Kuiper,et al.  Stress distribution around dental implants: influence of superstructure, length of implants, and height of mandible. , 1992, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  A. B. Novaes,et al.  Influence of implant microstructure on the dynamics of bone healing around immediate implants placed into periodontally infected sites. A confocal laser scanning microscopic study. , 2004, Clinical oral implants research.

[17]  Edwin A McGlumphy,et al.  Influence of implant geometry and surface characteristics on progressive osseointegration. , 2002, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[18]  A. B. Novaes,et al.  Influence of implant microstructure on the osseointegration of immediate implants placed in periodontally infected sites. A histomorphometric study in dogs. , 2004, Clinical oral implants research.

[19]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Design and surface characteristics of 13 commercially available oral implant systems. , 1993, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[20]  U. Joos,et al.  [Effect of implant geometry on strain distribution in peri-implant bone]. , 2000, Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie : MKG.