Next Article in Journal
First Principles Study of Bismuth Vacancy Formation in (111)-Strained BiFeO3
Next Article in Special Issue
Biological Activity of Silicon Nitride Ceramics: A Critical Review
Previous Article in Journal
Study on the Damage Mechanism of an H62-Cu/7075-Al Tribo-Pair Under the Influences of Current Direction and Density
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 17
Issue 22
10.3390/ma17225396
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Evaluation of Bone–Implant Contact in Various Surface-Treated Dental Implants Using High-Resolution Micro-CT in Rabbits’ Bone

by
Rafał Zieliński
1,*,
Adam K. Puszkarz
2,
Tomasz Piętka
3,
Jerzy Sowiński
4,
Monika Sadowska-Sowińska
4,
Agata Kołkowska
5,6 and
Wojciech Simka
5,*
1
Stomatologia na Ksieżym Młynie, Lodz, 16D Tymienieckiego, 90-365 Lodz, Poland
2
Textile Institute, Faculty of Material Technologies and Textile Design, Lodz University of Technology, 116 Żeromskiego Street, 90-924 Lodz, Poland
3
Amigo Dental, Rojna St. 22, 91-128 Lodz, Poland
4
Private Dental Clinic, Tetmajera 3A Rd, 05-080 Izabelin C, Poland
5
Department of Inorganic Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry, and Electrochemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, Silesian University of Technology, Krzywoustego St. 6, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
6
Chemistry Students Research Society, Faculty of Chemistry, Silesian University of Technology, Strzody 9 St., 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2024, 17(22), 5396; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17225396
Submission received: 11 October 2024 / Revised: 31 October 2024 / Accepted: 1 November 2024 / Published: 5 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue From Conventional to Modern Biomaterials in Dentistry—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study evaluated the bone-to-implant contact (BIC) of various surface-treated dental implants using high-resolution micro-CT in rabbit bone, focusing on the effects of different treatments on osseointegration and implant stability before and after bone demineralization. Six male New Zealand White rabbits were used. Four implant types were tested: machined surface with anodizing, only etching, sandblasting with Al2O3 + etching, and sandblasting with TiO2 + etching. Implants were scanned with high-resolution micro-CT before and after demineralization. Parameters like implant volume, surface area, and BIC were determined using specific software tools. During demineralization, the BIC changed about 6% for machined surface with anodizing, 5% for only etching, 4% for sandblasting with Al2O3 + etching, and 10% for sandblasting with TiO2 + etching. Demineralization reduced BIC percentages, notably in the machined surface with anodizing and sandblasting with TiO2 + etching groups. Etching and sandblasting combined with etching showed higher initial BIC compared to anodizing alone. Demineralization negatively impacted the BIC across all treatments. This study underscores the importance of surface modification in implant integration, especially in compromised bone. Further research with larger sample sizes and advanced techniques is recommended.

1. Introduction

In both dentistry and orthopedics, evaluating the osseointegration of an implant is crucial for determining the stability of internal fixation. The bone-to-implant contact (BIC) ratio, which is the proportion of the length of bone in direct contact with the implant thread to the total length of the implant thread, is used to assess the level of osseointegration and the implant’s stability [1,2,3].
Currently, histomorphometry is regarded as the gold standard for analyzing BIC [4]. However, the process of creating histological slides is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and destructive. This method yields only a limited number of representative cross-sections from specific positions on the implant, which is insufficient for providing comprehensive information about the entire implant [4,5]. Furthermore, once a specimen has undergone histomorphometric analysis, it cannot be used for any additional assessments.
Micro-computed tomography (μCT) has been widely adopted for evaluating the structure of bony tissue due to its time-saving, convenient, and nondestructive nature. The μCT data can be reconstructed to examine bone architecture at any location around the implant and analyze bone parameters in the region of interest (ROI). However, the different attenuation coefficients of bone and implant materials generate metallic artifacts at the bone–implant interface, affecting the BIC measurements obtained using μCT [6,7,8]. Some studies recommend using soft filters, such as aluminum or brass, to reduce artifacts during CT scanning and employing correction functions in analysis software to mitigate these artifacts [9,10]. These functions include misalignment compensation, ring artifact reduction, and beam-hardening correction [11]. Additionally, a few studies suggest excluding several voxels near the screw surface to eliminate the artifact zone when measuring BIC [12,13]. Despite these efforts, there is currently no ideal method or program for accurately measuring BIC using μCT [14].
So far, bone-to-implant contact measurements have been derived from two-dimensional (2D) μCT images or three-dimensional (3D) μCT models using various methods. Researchers have explored the correlation between BICs obtained from μCT and histology to determine if μCT could replace histology in assessing osseointegration [10,15,16]. However, the results of these correlation studies have been inconsistent. Few studies have evaluated implant osseointegration by integrating 2D μCT slices from multiple locations, which could potentially offer a more comprehensive assessment [5].
The successful integration of dental implants into bone is characterized by three key criteria [17]. The absence of rejection reactions includes a lack of inflammatory responses in surrounding tissues, local necrotic changes, and systemic manifestations such as allergic or immune reactions. The formation of morphofunctional determinants in the contact area, known as the “implant–tissue medium”, involves bone or bone-like substances in the case of osseointegration. The relative stability of determinants, including mechanical stability, of these morphofunctional determinants over time reflects the dynamic equilibrium within the “implant–tissue substrate” system.
Therefore, the primary operational properties of dental implants, such as osseointegration and biocompatibility, largely depend on the characteristics of their surface layer, which interacts directly with the biological tissues of the body (bone and gingiva). Consequently, surface modification of dental implants is crucial, and many scientific studies focus on this aspect. Surface modification methods can be broadly categorized into groups based on their primary effect, mechanical, physical, chemical, or biochemical, and combined methods that utilize multiple types of processing exist.
Mechanical treatment is one method of surface treatment which includes, among others, machining through cutting (machine stroking) [18,19,20,21,22,23] and sandblasting. The main goal of these treatments is to enhance the bone’s adherence to the implant (osseointegration), which is crucial for the long-term success of implantation.
Sandblasting is simple and cost-effective, enhancing cell adhesion and proliferation and osteoblast differentiation. However, acid etching of the implant is often required to homogenize the surface micro-profile and remove any remaining sand particles. If not performed, the surface material’s inhomogeneity can reduce the implant’s corrosion resistance [24].
Physical treatment techniques involve laser ablation [25,26], plasma spraying [27], vacuum arc coating [28,29,30], glow discharge plasma [31], ultraviolet light treatment [32], and ion implantation [33]. Chemical surface treatment methods are techniques that modify the properties of material surfaces using chemical reactions. Their goal is to improve surface durability, corrosion resistance, adhesion, aesthetics, or biocompatibility. These include anodizing, chemical etching, sandblasting, electrochemical [34,35] and electrophoretic [36] deposition of coatings, the sol–gel method [37], and plasma electrolytic oxidation [38].
Anodization is commonly used in bioengineering to modify surfaces and improve the properties of implants by forming an oxide layer. The thickness of this layer follows Faraday’s law. Titanium alloys are anodized to thicken the natural TiO2 oxide layer. Anodizing increases the surface roughness of titanium, creating an oxide layer with a crystalline structure primarily composed of anatase TiO2. The increased wettability and microporous structure enhance the adhesion of specific proteins, improving osseointegration and surface bioactivity. The process is conducted in oxidizing acid solutions (sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid) or alkaline phosphate or silicate solutions, with varying concentrations and process conditions (voltage, current density) [39,40].
Chemical (including electrochemical) etching can be divided into two main groups depending on the solution used: acid etching and alkaline etching (alkali treatment). Different surface textures and roughness can be achieved by varying the composition of etching solutions (typically the acid concentration), the temperature, and etching duration. Acid etching notably increases the roughness of the implant surface without altering its contact angle. In contrast, alkaline etching enhances the hydrophilicity of the dental implant surface. Additionally, acid etching is performed at lower temperatures and requires less time compared to the standard alkaline etching treatment [41].
Sandblasting of the surface followed by acid etching combines the benefits of both surface modification techniques. The SLA (Sand-blasted, Large-grit, Acid-etched) surface features a coarse-grained texture, resulting in improved osseointegration and osseoconductivity, particularly in the early stages after implantation, compared to untreated surfaces. The RBM (Resorbable Blast Media) surface is created by sandblasting the implant with resorbable Ca–phosphate compound particles, followed by etching in a low-concentration organic acid. This process produces deeper micropores compared to SLA, enhancing osseoconductivity and helping to reduce osteoporosis. However, the combined treatment results in a hydrophobic surface, which can slightly hinder the osseointegration of implants [42,43].
The aim of this article is to investigate the effects of different surface treatments on the osseointegration and stability of dental implants by comparing BIC values before and after bone demineralization using high-resolution µCT analysis and to examine whether selected innovative surface treatments, including etching and sandblasting, influence the degree of demineralization in cells surrounding implants. An innovative aspect of this publication is the use of an alternative type of surface treatment, coupled with in vivo studies that have been conducted to assess its effects. The following research null hypotheses were raised: (a) the method of preparing the implant surface does not affect BIC; (b) µCT is not a tool for correct assessment of BIC.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Implant Preparation

The implants were made of grade 4 titanium using CNC machines. They were then washed according to the company’s procedures, and surface treatment began—sandblasting and etching. Implants were etched in 50% H2SO4. Sandblasting was used in addition for some of them. Two types of SLA (Sandblasted, Large grit, Acid-etched) surfaces were obtained. First, part of implants were sandblasted with Al2O3 (grain size 180–250 µm) and etched in 50% H2SO4 at 120 °C. The rest of the samples were sandblasted with TiO2 (grain size 106–150 µm) and etched in 50% H2SO4 at 120 °C. After surface treatment, the samples were rinsed in distilled water and air-dried. The choice of compounds used for sandblasting was deliberate. Studies confirm the positive influence of sandblasting with TiO2 [44,45,46] and Al2O3 [47] on bone–implant contact (BIC) as early as the beginning of the 21st century. Additionally, Al2O3 is the most commonly used abrasive in sandblasting processes, while TiO2 is considered a more biocompatible alternative. These assumptions were verified through a series of tests and analyses. The concentrations of acids applied for etching were selected experimentally in preliminary studies.

2.2. In Vivo Tests

Our research was conducted on 6 male New Zealand White rabbits, each under 12 weeks of age and weighing no less than 3.5 kg. This study was approved by the Local Ethics Committee under the number 18/ŁB195/2021. All animals were quarantined before the start of the research and subjected to a one-day handling acclimation period.
The European rabbit animal model was chosen in accordance with the requirements and standards of PN-EN ISO 10993-6:2017-04, Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part 6: Tests for Local Effects after Implantation. Dental implants were deliberately designed and manufactured for rabbits purposes. The dimension of the implants was 2.5 mm × 6 mm. The first and final drill was 1.6 mm in diameter.
In the initial stage, we established the procedure techniques, implantation sites, and drills using a dead rabbit. Only then did we proceed to in vivo studies. There were some changes in the number of rabbits used, but for economic and ethical reasons, we aimed to limit their number to 6. Additionally, we used 2 rabbits designated for practicing cutting bone into pieces and taking RVG (radiovisiography) and CBCT (cone beam computed tomography) images to minimize the risk of damaging the valuable material with implants.

2.3. Scanning Electron Microscopy

The surface of all samples was thoroughly analyzed for morphology using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) both before and after demineralization (Phenom ProX; ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Surface morphology analysis is achieved by scanning the sample with a focused beam of electrons, which are emitted by the cathode and shaped into a beam by the optical system. The emitted electron signal is processed to generate an SEM image. The topographic contrast in the image is produced by the emission of secondary electrons. For this analysis, an accelerating voltage of 15 kV was applied.

2.4. Micro-Computed Tomography

High-resolution X-ray computed tomography, µ-CT (SkyScan 1272; Bruker, Kontich, Belgium), was used to investigate the geometric parameters (implant volume, implant surface, BIC) of the four tested implants. Implants screwed into the bone were scanned twice (before and after bone demineralization) under identical conditions: X-ray source voltage: 50 kV; X-ray source current: 200 µA; pixel size: 5 µm; rotation: 180° rotation; rotation step: 0.2°, with an Al 0.5 + Cu 0.038 filter. Using the software NRecon 1.7.4.2, CTAn 1.17.7.2+, Data Viewer 1.5.6.2 (Bruker, Kontich, Belgium), and ImageJ (ver. 1.8.0_245), the following implant parameters were determined: (1) implant volume, (2) implant surface, and (3) BIC. Using CTvox 3.3.0 r1403 software (Bruker, Kontich, Belgium), three-dimensional visualizations of each implant with bone attached were made (Figure 1).
Figure 2 shows the method based on which BIC was determined. Figure 2b shows a cross-section in the 0°–180° plane of the implant screwed into the bone (Figure 2a). The green line (length Lgreen) marks the edge of the implant in this selected plane, including the implant–bone connection and the implant–air connection (in the place where the bone has not attached to the implant). The red line (length Lred) marks the line covering the implant–air connection. In this case, BIC was calculated using Formula (1).
B I C = L g r e e n − L r e d L g r e e n × 100 %
The average BIC value for each implant was calculated from four BIC values calculated for sections in four planes (0°–180°; 45°–225°; 90°–270°; 135°–315°). The orientation of each of the four implants in any plane was randomly selected to better average the obtained BIC results.
Figure 3 shows the RVG (Gendex Dental Systems, Hatfield, PA, USA) of all four dental implants placed in a rabbit’s tibia and femoral bone.
Figure 3 shows that the implants were properly screwed into the bone. There are no visible changes around them that would indicate a problem with osseointegration.

3. Results

The samples after surface treatment were thoroughly examined. An analysis was conducted using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) before demineralization to compare the surface properties and morphology of implants treated in different ways (Figure 4). After demineralization, another series of SEM images was taken to assess the changes resulting from demineralization (Figure 5). This allows for the observation of differences in surface characteristics, while EDX spectra identify all elements present on the sample surfaces. The information provided by this analysis is highly valuable for selecting the appropriate surface treatment method.
Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy undoubtedly revealed titanium as the main element (Figure 4). Etching in 50% H2SO4 did not cause any noticeable changes in morphology, as observed in the SEM images. However, the EDX spectra show a higher oxygen peak. Sandblasting and etching produced a similar effect. The surface is covered with small pits with sharp edges, which are deeper in the sample sandblasted with titanium oxide. In the sandblasted and etched samples, no oxygen was detected. This study provides preliminary insights into expected outcomes following the implantation of similarly treated implants, considering surface morphology and characteristics.
After implant insertion, significant demineralization of the implants was observed on SEM images (Figure 5).
A significant amount of tissue growth was observed around each of the previously modified implants. The osseointegration process is advanced and clearly visible in all samples. The best result is achieved with the implant that was sandblasted with Al2O3 and then etched, where the tissue fully covers the implant (Figure 5). Observing implants post-implantation allows us to evaluate the effect of osseointegration, enabling a comparison of the efficacy of osseointegration across implants subjected to various surface treatments.
Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 present the results of implant connections with the edge, air, and bone. For each implant, the average bone-to-implant contact (BIC) is also provided. This research represents a highly detailed analysis of the quality of the bond between the implant and the bone.
Based on the micro-CT results obtained from dental implants placed in rabbits, several observations and implications can be drawn regarding the bone-to-implant contact (BIC) percentages before and after demineralization across different surface treatments. Given the ethical constraints limiting the sample size to six rabbits, this discussion focuses on the trends and patterns observed while acknowledging the limitations in statistical power.
The results summarized in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, obtained from the measurements after demineralization, exhibit a greater amplitude compared to those measured prior to demineralization. The standard deviation of the post-demineralization samples is approximately twice as large as that of the pre-demineralization samples. The greatest difference in the results was observed for the implants that underwent sandblasting with Al2O3 and acid etching. The lower standard deviations before demineralization indicate more consistent outcomes following the initial treatments. In contrast, the relatively higher standard deviations after demineralization, particularly in the sandblasting groups, suggest increased variability in response to demineralization. This variability may be attributed to differences in individual bone quality and healing responses among the rabbits. The unique characteristics of each organism could have contributed to a high standard deviation. The variation in BIC values across different measurement points may also result from surface heterogeneity. Surface treatments—etching or sandblasting—may not have produced identical effects across all areas. These inconsistencies could have been challenging or impossible to detect during the analysis of other research findings.
Moreover, the increased variability post-demineralization underscores the need for further research to better understand the underlying mechanisms and to develop strategies to mitigate these effects.
The BIC analysis enabled a quantitative assessment of osseointegration quality, highlighting the variability in the results. This study identified limitations arising from the sample size and variations in the bone characteristics of each rabbit. This is the most precise technique among those used in the current study to determine the degree of osseointegration.
Figure 6 presents the average bone-to-implant contact (BIC) values for implants subjected to various surface treatments, both before and after demineralization. This comparison makes differences in BIC more readily observable.
The highest BIC values are observed in Figure 6 for the implant that was only etched. The BIC value for each implant decreased by 4–10% after demineralization. This indicates that demineralization adversely affects the bone–implant interface, potentially compromising implant stability. The largest BIC reduction was seen in the implant sandblasted with TiO2 and etched, while the smallest reduction occurred in the implant sandblasted with Al2O3 and etched. Titanium oxide (TiO2) is softer than aluminum oxide (Al2O3), which may have resulted in less effective sandblasting. The difference in grain hardness could have influenced surface roughness, leading to uneven etching. Overall, sandblasting reduced BIC compared to the etched-only implant. Despite the reduction in BIC during demineralization, the etched-only implant maintained a BIC level similar to that of the other implants before demineralization.
The analysis of surface area and volume for all implants (Table 5) allows us to assess mass loss or gain, as well as changes in surface area. Such changes in implant characteristics can lead to varying outcomes, making it crucial to monitor these parameters. Significant differences in mass may prevent the proper fit of different components, potentially leading to loosening. Conversely, changes in surface area impact the quality of the implant–bone connection, where a larger surface area is preferred.
The volumes of the implants across the different treatments are relatively consistent, ranging from 8.91 mm3 to 9.54 mm3 (Table 5). Implant volume appears to be largely unaffected by the surface treatment method. The slight variations in volume suggest that the chosen treatments do not significantly alter the overall dimensions of the implants.
The surface areas of the implants vary more significantly between treatments. The etching-only method resulted in the highest surface area (69.11 mm2), while the anodizing-only method resulted in the lowest (60.82 mm2). Sandblasting followed by etching with either Al2O3 or TiO2 produced intermediate surface areas (66.85 mm2 and 63.29 mm2, respectively). This suggests that the combination of sandblasting and etching effectively increases the surface area compared to anodizing alone. The increased surface area observed in the etched and sandblasted samples may contribute to better osseointegration, as a larger surface area typically enhances the mechanical interlocking between the implant and bone.

4. Discussion

Research indicates that the best osseointegration results are achieved with sandblasting and etching, as these treatments result in minimal mass loss while effectively increasing surface area, thereby enhancing the implant’s integration with bone. Surface treatment is a critical process that often determines the quality of the bone–implant interface. Selecting the appropriate type of surface treatment and optimizing the parameters of the procedure have a significant impact on bone-to-implant contact (BIC) values and the potential risk of implant failure. Studies have demonstrated that the rough surface resulting from etching and sandblasting promotes bone tissue integration with the implant. Selecting compounds for this type of treatment is an essential first step. According to the literature, sandblasting with aluminum oxide (Al2O3) is the most common method. However, TiO2 may be a beneficial alternative due to its positive effects on osteoblast-like cells and bone integration. The SLA method with Al2O3 and sulfuric (H2SO4) or hydrochloric (HCl) acid is well documented in the literature, although there are mentions of potential risks for long-term osseointegration due to particle embedding on the surface during treatment. Unfortunately, there is a lack of in vivo studies documenting the results of using TiO2 in SLA surface preparation [48,49,50].
The results found in the literature regarding Al2O3 use are inconsistent. Some studies suggest it reduces osteolysis without a significant impact on osteoblast-like or macrophage-like cells. Other studies indicate that Al2O3 induces an inflammatory response during the co-culture of osteoblasts and macrophages in its presence, potentially due to the release of cytokines, which act as inflammatory mediators. Sandblasting with Al2O3 may cause its accumulation at the mineralization front and within the osteoid matrix itself [51,52,53,54,55]. Despite these drawbacks, Al2O3 remains one of the only ceramic oxides that produces satisfactory results, leading researchers to seek better alternatives. TiO2 minimizes the risk of contamination by residual debris from the blasting procedure. While many studies present biomechanical results, few address in vivo studies. It has been confirmed that TiO2 sandblasting increases wettability compared to a machined surface, positively influencing the osseointegration process. Accelerated bone formation and improved interface quality have also been confirmed [49,56,57].
One significant association with implant insertion is the process of demineralization caused by inflammation, where hydroxyapatite (HA) mineral ions are removed from hard tissues, especially bone. Demineralization can be triggered by various factors, including uneven bone loading due to the implant. Furthermore, even minimal implant movement can damage bone, leading to implant loosening. Upon implant placement, there is an increased risk of bacterial inflammation, which may occur more frequently. Bone demineralization alters the bone’s chemical composition and physicochemical properties. The production of osteoblasts may also be impaired, resulting in lower BIC values post-demineralization (as observed in implants treated with TiO2 sandblasting). Deterioration in bone quality around the implant increases the risk of complications due to unstable implant integration with bone [58,59,60].
The conducted studies provide insights into the surface characteristics and morphology of BIC, as well as in vivo results from studies on rabbits. A detailed analysis confirmed the positive effects of surface treatment on successful implantation. An irregular surface improved the bone–implant interface quality. The BIC values achieved for etching and TiO2 sandblasting were higher than those for Al2O3 before demineralization. After demineralization, the opposite effect was observed, indicating that TiO2 is a suitable alternative to Al2O3 as a sandblasting abrasive. The results show that demineralization reduced BIC, with the most significant impact seen in the TiO2 sandblasted implants.
This study aimed to highlight differences in bone-to-implant quality using various surface treatment methods. The in vitro and in vivo studies were conducted on rabbit implants and cannot be directly applied to human implants, which are larger. A series of experiments is necessary to optimize the parameters and control the applied methods for human application.
The limited sample number (n = 6) and size restricts the ability to generalize the findings. Larger studies are necessary to validate these results and establish more robust statistical conclusions. Future research should also focus on the long-term outcomes of these surface treatments to determine their durability and effectiveness over time, particularly in the face of challenges like demineralization. Employing advanced analytical techniques and histological evaluations could provide deeper insights into bone–implant interactions and the mechanisms driving the observed changes in BIC percentages.
The current study provides valuable preliminary insights into the effectiveness of different surface treatments on dental implants; however, the ethical and methodological limitations necessitate cautious interpretation of the results. Continued research with larger sample sizes and comprehensive analyses is essential to optimize implant surface technologies for improved clinical outcomes.

5. Conclusions

The high-resolution micro-CT analysis provided detailed insights into the effects of different surface treatments on dental implant integration. The current study found that while all surface treatments facilitated strong initial bone–implant contact, demineralization significantly impacted the stability and variability of this contact. The data suggest that surface treatments such as etching and sandblasting combined with etching generally lead to higher initial BIC percentages compared to anodizing alone. Etching alone shows the highest BIC percentage before demineralization, indicating its effectiveness in promoting bone integration. The SEM images showed that all of the implants were demineralized, with the best result obtained for the sample etched and sandblasted with Al2O3. Considering the results of the in vivo studies, SEM image analysis, and bone-to-implant connection metrics, etching and sandblasting with Al2O3 represent the most effective combined surface treatment method.
These findings highlight the importance of surface treatment in enhancing implant stability, particularly in conditions where bone quality is compromised. Further research is recommended to develop and optimize surface treatments that improve long-term implant integration in demineralized bone conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.Z. and T.P.; methodology, R.Z., T.P. and A.K.P.; software, R.Z. and A.K.P.; validation, R.Z.; formal analysis, R.Z. and J.S.; investigation, R.Z., T.P., A.K.P. and M.S.-S.; resources, R.Z., A.K.P. and T.P.; data curation, R.Z., A.K.P. and J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, R.Z., A.K. and W.S.; writing—review and editing, R.Z., A.K. and W.S.; visualization, R.Z., A.K.P., A.K. and W.S.; supervision, R.Z.; project administration, R.Z.; funding acquisition, R.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Centrum Obsługi Przedsiębiorcy, grant number RPLD.01.02.02-10-0040/19 in competition with number RPLD.01.02.02-IP.02-10-052/19.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Local Ethics Committee approved this study under the number 18/ŁB195/2021.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data are unavailable due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgments

The dental implants for rabbits were designed and manufactured by Integra Implants® in Lodz, Dostawcza 14, Poland.

Conflicts of Interest

The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Meagher, M.J.; Parwani, R.N.; Virdi, A.S.; Sumner, D.R. Optimizing a micro-computed tomography-based surrogate measurement of bone-implant contact. J. Orthop. Res. 2018, 36, 979–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Choi, J.-Y.; Park, J.-I.; Chae, J.S.; Yeo, I.-S.L. Comparison of micro-computed tomography and histomorphometry in the measurement of bone–implant contact ratios. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2019, 128, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Albrektsson, T. Hard tissue implant interface. Aust. Dent. J. 2008, 53, S34–S38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bernhardt, R.; Kuhlisch, E.; Schulz, M.; Eckelt, U.; Stadlinger, B. Comparison of bone-implant contact and bone-implant volume between 2D-histological sections and 3D-SRµCT slices. Eur. Cells Mater. 2012, 23, 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Park, Y.; Yi, K.; Lee, I.; Jung, Y. Correlation between microtomography and histomorphometry for assessment of implant osseointegration. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2005, 16, 156–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Boas, F.E.; Fleischmann, D. CT artifacts: Causes and reduction techniques. Imaging Med. 2012, 4, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vandeweghe, S.; Coelho, P.G.; Vanhove, C.; Wennerberg, A.; Jimbo, R. Utilizing micro-computed tomography to evaluate bone structure surrounding dental implants: A comparison with histomorphometry. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2013, 101, 1259–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, J.Y.; Pow, E.H.N.; Zheng, L.W.; Ma, L.; Kwong, D.L.W.; Cheung, L.K. Quantitative analysis of titanium-induced artifacts and correlated factors during micro-CT scanning. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2014, 25, 506–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Van Oosterwyck, H.; Duyck, J.; Vander Sloten, J.; Vander Perre, G.; Jansen, J.; Wevers, M.; Naert, I. The Use of Microfocus Computerized Tomography as a New Technique for Characterizing Bone Tissue Around Oral Implants. J. Oral Implantol. 2000, 26, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stoppie, N.; van der Waerden, J.; Jansen, J.A.; Duyck, J.; Wevers, M.; Naert, I.E. Validation of Microfocus Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Bone Implant Specimens. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2005, 7, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. de Faria Vasconcelos, K.; dos Santos Corpas, L.; da Silveira, B.M.; Laperre, K.; Padovan, L.E.; Jacobs, R.; de Freitas, P.H.L.; Lambrichts, I.; Bóscolo, F.N. Micro-CT assessment of bone microarchitecture in implant sites reconstructed with autogenous and xenogenous grafts: A pilot study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017, 28, 308–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Liu, S.; Broucek, J.; Virdi, A.S.; Sumner, D.R. Limitations of using micro-computed tomography to predict bone–implant contact and mechanical fixation. J. Microsc. 2012, 245, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Sarve, H.; Friberg, B.; Borgefors, G.; Johansson, C.B. Introducing a Novel Analysis Technique for Osseointegrated Dental Implants Retrieved 29 Years Postsurgery. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2013, 15, 538–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Choi, J.-Y.C.; Choi, C.A.; Yeo, I.-S.L. Spiral scanning imaging and quantitative calculation of the 3-dimensional screw-shaped bone-implant interface on micro-computed tomography. J. Periodontal Implant Sci. 2018, 48, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schouten, C.; Meijer, G.J.; van den Beucken, J.J.J.P.; Spauwen, P.H.M.; Jansen, J.A. The quantitative assessment of peri-implant bone responses using histomorphometry and micro-computed tomography. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 4539–4549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bissinger, O.; Probst, F.A.; Wolff, K.; Jeschke, A.; Weitz, J.; Deppe, H.; Kolk, A. Comparative 3D micro-CT and 2D histomorphometry analysis of dental implant osseointegration in the maxilla of minipigs. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2017, 44, 418–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kulakov, A.A.; Grogor’ian, A.S.; Arkhipov, A.V. Impact of surface modifications of dental implants on their integration potential. Stomatologiya 2012, 91, 75–77. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lang, M.; Cerutis, D.; Miyamoto, T.; Nunn, M. Cell Attachment Following Instrumentation with Titanium and Plastic Instruments, Diode Laser, and Titanium Brush on Titanium, Titanium-Zirconium, and Zirconia Surfaces. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2016, 31, 799–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Guarnieri, R.; Rappelli, G.; Piemontese, M.; Procaccini, M.; Quaranta, A. A Double-Blind Randomized Trial Comparing Implants with Laser-Microtextured and Machined Collar Surfaces: Microbiologic and Clinical Results. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2016, 31, 1117–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Xing, R.; Lyngstadaas, S.P.; Ellingsen, J.E.; Taxt-Lamolle, S.; Haugen, H.J. The influence of surface nanoroughness, texture and chemistry of TiZr implant abutment on oral biofilm accumulation. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015, 26, 649–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Guarnieri, R.; Miccoli, G.; Reda, R.; Mazzoni, A.; Di Nardo, D.; Testarelli, L. Sulcus fluid volume, IL-6, and Il-1b concentrations in periodontal and peri-implant tissues comparing machined and laser-microtextured collar/abutment surfaces during 12 weeks of healing: A split-mouth RCT. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2022, 33, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Camarda, A.J.; Durand, R.; Benkarim, M.; Rompré, P.H.; Guertin, G.; Ciaburro, H. Prospective randomized clinical trial evaluating the effects of two different implant collar designs on peri-implant healing and functional osseointegration after 25 years. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2021, 32, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kim, Y.-S.; Ko, Y.; Kye, S.-B.; Yang, S.-M. Human Gingival Fibroblast (HGF-1) Attachment and Proliferation on Several Abutment Materials with Various Colors. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014, 29, 969–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Prati, C.; Zamparini, F.; Scialabba, V.; Gatto, M.; Piattelli, A.; Montebugnoli, L.; Gandolfi, M. A 3-Year Prospective Cohort Study on 132 Calcium Phosphate–Blasted Implants: Flap vs Flapless Technique. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2016, 31, 413–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Guarnieri, R.; Serra, M.; Bava, L.; Grande, M.; Farronato, D.; Iorio-Siciliano, V. The Impact of a Laser-Microtextured Collar on Crestal Bone Level and Clinical Parameters Under Various Placement and Loading Protocols. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014, 29, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mastrangelo, F.; Quaresima, R.; Canullo, L.; Scarano, A.; Muzio, L.; Piattelli, A. Effects of Novel Laser Dental Implant Microtopography on Human Osteoblast Proliferation and Bone Deposition. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2020, 35, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hu, F.; Fan, X.; Peng, F.; Yan, X.; Song, J.; Deng, C.; Liu, M.; Zeng, D.; Ning, C. Characterization of Porous Titanium-Hydroxyapatite Composite Biological Coating on Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) by Vacuum Plasma Spraying. Coatings 2022, 12, 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Brunello, G.; Brun, P.; Gardin, C.; Ferroni, L.; Bressan, E.; Meneghello, R.; Zavan, B.; Sivolella, S. Biocompatibility and antibacterial properties of zirconium nitride coating on titanium abutments: An in vitro study. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0199591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Prachar, P.; Bartakova, S.; Brezina, V.; Cvrcek, L.; Vanek, J. Cytocompatibility of implants coated with titanium nitride and zirconium nitride. Bratisl. Med. J. 2015, 116, 154–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Grigoriev, S.N.; Volosova, M.A.; Migranov, M.S.; Minin, I.V.; Shekhtman, S.R.; Suhova, N.A.; Gurin, V.D.; Pivkin, P.M. Nanostructured biocompatible Ti-TiN coating for implants with improved functional properties. In Proceedings of the Technologies for Optical Countermeasures XVIII and High-Power Lasers: Technology and Systems, Platforms, Effects V, Online, 13–18 September 2021; Titterton, D.H., Grasso, R.J., Richardson, M.A., Bohn, W.L., Ackermann, H., Eds.; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2021; p. 5. [Google Scholar]
  31. Pan, Y.-H.; Lin, J.C.Y.; Chen, M.K.; Salamanca, E.; Choy, C.S.; Tsai, P.-Y.; Leu, S.-J.; Yang, K.-C.; Huang, H.-M.; Yao, W.-L.; et al. Glow Discharge Plasma Treatment on Zirconia Surface to Enhance Osteoblastic-Like Cell Differentiation and Antimicrobial Effects. Materials 2020, 13, 3771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ogawa, T. Ultraviolet Photofunctionalization of Titanium Implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014, 29, e95–e102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Jin, G.; Qin, H.; Cao, H.; Qian, S.; Zhao, Y.; Peng, X.; Zhang, X.; Liu, X.; Chu, P.K. Synergistic effects of dual Zn/Ag ion implantation in osteogenic activity and antibacterial ability of titanium. Biomaterials 2014, 35, 7699–7713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Karl, M.; Albrektsson, T. Clinical Performance of Dental Implants with a Moderately Rough (TiUnite) Surface: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Clinical Studies. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2017, 32, 717–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Martínez-Rus, F.; Prieto, M.; Salido, M.; Madrigal, C.; Özcan, M.; Pradíes, G. A Clinical Study Assessing the Influence of Anodized Titanium and Zirconium Dioxide Abutments and Peri-implant Soft Tissue Thickness on the Optical Outcome of Implant-Supported Lithium Disilicate Single Crowns. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2017, 32, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Djošić, M.; Janković, A.; Mišković-Stanković, V. Electrophoretic Deposition of Biocompatible and Bioactive Hydroxyapatite-Based Coatings on Titanium. Materials 2021, 14, 5391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Radin, S.; Ducheyne, P. Controlled release of vancomycin from thin sol–gel films on titanium alloy fracture plate material. Biomaterials 2007, 28, 1721–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Gnedenkov, S.V.; Sharkeev, Y.P.; Sinebryukhov, S.L.; Khrisanfova, O.A.; Legostaeva, E.V.; Zavidnaya, A.G.; Puz’, A.V.; Khlusov, I.A.; Opra, D.P. Functional coatings formed on the titanium and magnesium alloys as implant materials by plasma electrolytic oxidation technology: Fundamental principles and synthesis conditions. Corros. Rev. 2016, 34, 65–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Traini, T.; Murmura, G.; Sinjari, B.; Perfetti, G.; Scarano, A.; D’Arcangelo, C.; Caputi, S. The surface anodization of titanium dental implants improves blood clot formation followed by osseointegration. Coatings 2018, 8, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mishra, S.; Kumar, M.; Chowdhary, R. Anodized dental implant surface. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2017, 28, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Benalcázar Jalkh, E.B.; Parra, M.; Torroni, A.; Nayak, V.V.; Tovar, N.; Castellano, A.; Badalov, R.M.; Bonfante, E.A.; Coelho, P.G.; Witek, L. Effect of supplemental acid-etching on the early stages of osseointegration: A preclinical model. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2021, 122, 104682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rajan, A.; Sivarajan, S.; Vallabhan, C.G.; Nair, A.S.; Jayakumar, S.; Pillai, A.S. An In Vitro Study to Evaluate and Compare the Hemocompatibility of Titanium and Zirconia Implant Materials after Sandblasted and Acid-etched Surface Treatment. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2018, 19, 1448–1454. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Kim, H.; Park, S.; Han, M.; Lee, Y.; Ku, Y.; Rhyu, I.; Seol, Y. Occurrence of Progressive Bone Loss Around Anodized Surface Implants and Resorbable Blasting Media Implants: A Retrospective Cohort Study. J. Periodontol. 2017, 88, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gotfredson, K.; Wennerberg, A.; Johansson, C.; Skovgaard, L.T.; Hjørting-Hansen, E. Anchorage of TiO 2 -blasted, HA-coated, and machined implants: An experimental study with rabbits. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1995, 29, 1223–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ivanoff, C.; Widmark, G.; Hallgren, C.; Sennerby, L.; Wennerberg, A. Histologic evaluation of the bone integration of TiO2 blasted and turned titanium microimplants in humans. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2001, 12, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Rasmusson, L.; Kahnberg, K.; Tan, A. Effects of Implant Design and Surface on Bone Regeneration and Implant Stability: An Experimental Study in the Dog Mandible. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2001, 3, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Velasco-Ortega, E.; Ortiz-Garcia, I.; Jiménez-Guerra, A.; Núñez-Márquez, E.; Moreno-Muñoz, J.; Rondón-Romero, J.L.; Cabanillas-Balsera, D.; Gil, J.; Muñoz-Guzón, F.; Monsalve-Guil, L. Osseointegration of Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces. A Histological and Histomorphometric Study in the Rabbit. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 8507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schupbach, P.; Glauser, R.; Bauer, S. Al2O3 Particles on Titanium Dental Implant Systems following Sandblasting and Acid-Etching Process. Int. J. Biomater. 2019, 2019, 6318429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Gehrke, S.A.; Del Fabbro, M.; Coelho, P.G.; Bozano, R. Positive biomechanical effects of titanium oxide for sandblasting implant surface as an alternative to aluminium oxide. J. Oral Implantol. 2015, 41, 515–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Xie, Y.; Li, J.; Yu, Z.M.; Wei, Q. Nano modified SLA process for titanium implants. Mater. Lett. 2017, 186, 38–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rodrigo, A.; Vallés, G.; Saldaña, L.; Rodríguez, M.; Martínez, M.E.; Munuera, L.; Vilaboa, N. Alumina particles influence the interactions of cocultured osteoblasts and macrophages. J. Orthop. Res. 2006, 24, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Li, D.; Wang, C.; Li, Z.; Wang, H.; He, J.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, C.; Xiao, F.; Gao, Y.; et al. Nano-sized Al2O3 particle-induced autophagy reduces osteolysis in aseptic loosening of total hip arthroplasty by negative feedback regulation of RANKL expression in fibroblasts. Cell Death Dis. 2018, 9, 840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Zhang, Y.F.; Zheng, Y.F.; Qin, L. A comprehensive biological evaluation of ceramic nanoparticles as wear debris. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2011, 7, 975–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Sharma, A.R.; Lee, Y.-H.; Gankhuyag, B.; Chakraborty, C.; Lee, S.-S. Effect of Alumina Particles on the Osteogenic Ability of Osteoblasts. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Bahraminasab, M.; Arab, S.; Ghaffari, S. Osteoblastic cell response to Al2O3 -Ti composites as bone implant materials. BioImpacts 2021, 12, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Gil, F.J.; Pérez, R.A.; Olmos, J.; Herraez-Galindo, C.; Gutierrez-Pérez, J.L.; Torres-Lagares, D. The effect of using Al2O3 and TiO2 in sandblasting of titanium dental implants. J. Mater. Res. 2022, 37, 2604–2613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rønold, H.J.; Lyngstadaas, S.P.; Ellingsen, J.E. A study on the effect of dual blasting with TiO2 on titanium implant surfaces on functional attachment in bone. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2003, 67A, 524–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Abou Neel, E.; Aljabo, A.; Strange, A.; Ibrahim, S.; Coathup, M.; Young, A.; Bozec, L.; Mudera, V. Demineralization–remineralization dynamics in teeth and bone. Int. J. Nanomed. 2016, 11, 4743–4763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zero, D.T. Etiology of dental erosion—Extrinsic factors. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 1996, 104, 162–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Scaramucci, T.; Carvalho, J.C.; Hara, A.T.; Zero, D.T. Causes of Dental Erosion: Intrinsic Factors. In Dental Erosion and Its Clinical Management; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 35–67. [Google Scholar]
Materials 17 05396 g001
Figure 1. Three-dimensional visualization of implant with bone attached.
Figure 1. Three-dimensional visualization of implant with bone attached.
Materials 17 05396 g001
Materials 17 05396 g002
Figure 2. A schematic illustration of the BIC calculation method.
Figure 2. A schematic illustration of the BIC calculation method.
Materials 17 05396 g002
Materials 17 05396 g003
Figure 3. Four tested implants screwed into rabbit’s bone. Implant 1—machined surface with only anodizing; Implant 2—only etching; Implant 3—sandblasting by Al2O3 + etching; Implant 4—sandblasting by TiO2 + etching.
Figure 3. Four tested implants screwed into rabbit’s bone. Implant 1—machined surface with only anodizing; Implant 2—only etching; Implant 3—sandblasting by Al2O3 + etching; Implant 4—sandblasting by TiO2 + etching.
Materials 17 05396 g003
Materials 17 05396 g004
Figure 4. SEM (A–D) images and EDX spectra (E–H) of samples after different surface treatment processes.
Figure 4. SEM (A–D) images and EDX spectra (E–H) of samples after different surface treatment processes.
Materials 17 05396 g004
Materials 17 05396 g005
Figure 5. SEM images of implants after demineralization (A–C—magnification ×200; D–F—magnification ×50).
Figure 5. SEM images of implants after demineralization (A–C—magnification ×200; D–F—magnification ×50).
Materials 17 05396 g005
Materials 17 05396 g006
Figure 6. Average BIC value for all implants tested.
Figure 6. Average BIC value for all implants tested.
Materials 17 05396 g006
Table 1. Average BIC value for implant with machined surface.
Table 1. Average BIC value for implant with machined surface.
Machined Surface—Only Anodizing
Before DemineralizationAfter Demineralization
cross-sectional plane0°–180°45°–225°90°–270°135°–315°0°–180°45°–225°90°–270°135°–315°
implant–edge connection line [mm]16,78416,60616,52315,53516,15116,93416,81215,303
implant–air connection line [mm]24322853411817482037176866744702
implant–bone connection line (BIC) [%]8683758987906069
average BIC [%]83 77
standard deviation BIC [%]6 14
Table 2. Average BIC value for implant with etched surface.
Table 2. Average BIC value for implant with etched surface.
Only Etching
Before DemineralizationAfter Demineralization
cross-sectional plane0°–180°45°–225°90°–270°135°–315°0°–180°45°–225°90°–270°135°–315°
implant–edge connection line [mm]16,78116,95716,85315,78719,95015,32917,59617,621
implant–air connection line [mm]19422335237913206741120414582852
implant–bone connection line (BIC) [%]8886869266929284
average BIC [%]88 83
standard deviation BIC [%]3 12
Table 3. Average BIC value for implant with surface sandblasted by Al2O3 and etched.
Table 3. Average BIC value for implant with surface sandblasted by Al2O3 and etched.
Sandblasting by Al2O3 + Etching
Before DemineralizationAfter Demineralization
cross-sectional plane0°–180°45°–225°90°–270°135°–315°0°–180°45°–225°90°–270°135°–315°
implant–edge connection line [mm]16,95317,63815,69216,95716,32116,27517,25817,028
implant–air connection line [mm]29761497129961931490194691372481
implant–bone connection line (BIC) [%]8292926391884785
average BIC [%]82 78
standard deviation BIC [%]13 21
Table 4. Average BIC value for implant with surface sandblasted by TiO2 and etched.
Table 4. Average BIC value for implant with surface sandblasted by TiO2 and etched.
Sandblasting by TiO2 + Etching
Before DemineralizationAfter Demineralization
cross-sectional plane0°–180°45°–225°90°–270°135°–315°0°–180°45°–225°90°–270°135°–315°
implant–edge connection line [mm]16,11217,07116,72616,99917,80815,97818,56317,415
implant–air connection line [mm]30511755184839492008445186462878
implant–bone connection line (BIC) [%]8190897789725383
average BIC [%]84 74
standard deviation BIC [%]6 16
Table 5. Implant volume and surface.
Table 5. Implant volume and surface.
Only AnodizingOnly EtchingSandblasting by Al2O3 + EtchingSandblasting by TiO2 + Etching
implant volume [mm3]9.458.919.469.54
implant surface [mm2]60.8269.1166.8563.29
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zieliński, R.; Puszkarz, A.K.; Piętka, T.; Sowiński, J.; Sadowska-Sowińska, M.; Kołkowska, A.; Simka, W. Comparative Evaluation of Bone–Implant Contact in Various Surface-Treated Dental Implants Using High-Resolution Micro-CT in Rabbits’ Bone. Materials 2024, 17, 5396. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17225396

AMA Style

Zieliński R, Puszkarz AK, Piętka T, Sowiński J, Sadowska-Sowińska M, Kołkowska A, Simka W. Comparative Evaluation of Bone–Implant Contact in Various Surface-Treated Dental Implants Using High-Resolution Micro-CT in Rabbits’ Bone. Materials. 2024; 17(22):5396. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17225396

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zieliński, Rafał, Adam K. Puszkarz, Tomasz Piętka, Jerzy Sowiński, Monika Sadowska-Sowińska, Agata Kołkowska, and Wojciech Simka. 2024. "Comparative Evaluation of Bone–Implant Contact in Various Surface-Treated Dental Implants Using High-Resolution Micro-CT in Rabbits’ Bone" Materials 17, no. 22: 5396. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17225396

APA Style

Zieliński, R., Puszkarz, A. K., Piętka, T., Sowiński, J., Sadowska-Sowińska, M., Kołkowska, A., & Simka, W. (2024). Comparative Evaluation of Bone–Implant Contact in Various Surface-Treated Dental Implants Using High-Resolution Micro-CT in Rabbits’ Bone. Materials, 17(22), 5396. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17225396

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop