[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Sunday, May 20, 2018, IP: 106.208.199.

199]

Review Article www.ijdr.in

Status of surface treatment in endosseous implant: A literary

overview

Ankur Gupta, M Dhanraj, G Sivagami

Department of Prosthodontics
and Oral Implantology,
ABSTRACT
Saveetha Dental College, The attachment of cells to titanium surfaces is an important phenomenon in the area of clinical
Saveetha University,
Chennai - 600 077, India implant dentistry. A major consideration in designing implants has been to produce surfaces
that promote desirable responses in the cells and tissues. To achieve these requirements, the
titanium implant surface can be modified in various ways. This review mainly focuses on the
Received : 03-09-09
surface topography of dental implants currently in use, emphasizing the association of reported
Review completed : 09-10-09 variables with biological outcome.
Accepted : 04-03-10
PubMed ID : *** Key words: Bone implant interface, surface topography, surface chemistry, adhesion molecules,
DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.70805 hydroxyapatite coating, sputtering

Over the past three decades, significant advances have more effective osseointegration.
occurred in the clinical use of oral and maxillofacial
implants. Statistics on the use of dental implant reveal CONTROLLING THE BONE IMPLANT
that about 100,000–300,000 dental implants are placed per INTERFACE BY BIOMATERIAL SELECTION AND
year,[1] which approximates the numbers of artificial hip and
MODIFICATION
knee joints placed per year.[2] Implants are currently used
to replace missing teeth, rebuild the craniofacial skeleton, Different approaches are employed to obtain desired
provide anchorage during orthodontic treatments and even outcomes at the bone–implant interface. As a general rule,
to help new bone formation in the process of distraction an ideal implant biomaterial should present a surface that
osteogenesis. will not disrupt, and that may even enhance, the general
processes of bone healing, regardless of implantation site,
Despite the impressive clinical accomplishments with oral bone quantity and bone quality.[3] As described by Ito et al.,[4]
and maxillofacial implants—and the undisputed fact that the approaches to alter implant surfaces can be classified as
implants have improved the lives of millions of patients— physicochemical, morphologic or biochemical.
it is nevertheless disquieting that key information is still
missing about fundamental principles underlying their
PHYSICOCHEMICAL METHOD
design and clinical use. With some important exceptions,
the design and use of oral and maxillofacial implants has It mainly involves the alteration of surface energy, surface
often been driven by an aggressive marketing environment charge and surface composition with the aim of improving
rather than by basic advances in biomaterials, biomechanics the bone–implant interface. The method employed is the
or bone biology. Hence, it is important to comprehensively glow discharge method, which increases the cell adhesion
navigate the various factors controlling the success of dental properties. The role of electrostatic interaction in biological
implants. events is mainly proposed to be conducive to tissue
integration.[5,6] But, on the contralateral side, it has been
Among the several parameters influencing the success of found that it does not help in adhering selective cells/tissues
the implants, implant bone interface plays a crucial role and it has not been shown to increase the bone implant
in prolonging the longevity and effective function of the interfacial strength.[7]
implant-supported prosthesis. There are several modalities
to improve bone implant interface to promote faster and MORPHOLOGICAL METHODS

Address for correspondence:

It mainly deals with alteration of surface morphology and
Dr. Ankur Gupta roughness to influence cell and tissue response to implants.
E-mail: [email protected] Many animal studies support that bone ingrowth into macro
433 Indian J Dent Res, 21(3), 2010
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Sunday, May 20, 2018, IP: 106.208.199.199]

Surface treatment in endosseous implant Gupta, et al.

rough surfaces enhances the interfacial and shear strengths.[8] It is mainly performed by Al2O3[14] and TiO2, with
In addition, surfaces with specially contoured grooves particle size ranging from small, medium to large
can induce contact guidance,[9] whereby direction of cell (150–350 µm) grit. Roughness depends on particle size,
movement is affected by morphology of substrate. The time of blasting, pressure and distance from the source
added advantage is that this method prevents the epithelial of particle to the implant surface.
downgrowth on dental implants.[10] Advantages of blasting
Studies have inferred that it allows adhesion,
The two categories of surface characteristics commonly cited proliferation and differentiation of osteoblasts,[15] and
for determining tissue response are: it has also been noticed that fibroblasts adhere to the
• Surface topography/morphological characteristics. surface with difficulty and hence could limit soft tissue
• Chemical properties. proliferation[16] and increase bone formation.
Although blasting is the most commonly used modality
Surface topography for increasing the surface roughness, its use has been
Surface topography can produce orientation and guide
limited due to the following reasons.
locomotion of special cells, and has the ability to directly
affect their shape and function.
Key facts
Implant surfaces have been classified on different criteria, Al2O3 particles are left after blasting. Studies have
such as roughness, texture and orientation of irregularities. presented mixed results regarding its presence. It was
(A) Wennerberg and coworkers[11] have classified implant reported in catalyzing osseointegration[17] by few authors
surfaces based on the surface roughness as: and others have shown that the aluminum ion particles
1. Minimally rough (0.5–1 µm) could impair bone formation by a possible competitive
2. Intermediately rough (1–2 µm) action with calcium ions.
3. Rough (2–3 µm)
(B) Based on texture obtained, the implant surface can be 2. Chemical etching: The metallic implant is immersed
divided as: into an acidic solution, which erodes its surface, creating
1. Concave texture (mainly by additive treatments like pits of a specific diameter and shape.[18] Acid-etching
hydroxyapatite (HA) coating and titanium plasma produces micropits on the titanium surfaces, with sizes
spraying) ranging from 0.5 to 2 µm in diameter.
2. Convex texture (mainly by subtractive treatment
like etching and blasting) Immersion of titanium implants for several minutes in
(C) Based on the orientation of surface irregularities,[12] a mixture of concentrated HCl and H2SO4 heated above
implant surfaces are divided as: 100°C (dual acid etching) is employed to produce a
1. Isotropic surfaces: have the same topography microrough surface. This type of surface promotes rapid
independent of measuring direction. osseointegration while maintaining long-term success
2. Anisotropic surfaces: have clear directionality and over 3 years.
differ considerably in roughness.
There are several advantages of increasing surface roughness: The concentration of the acidic solution, time and
Advantages of increased roughness: temperature are factors determining the result of a
1. Increased surface area of implant adjacent to bone. chemical attack and microstructure of the surface.
2. Improved cell attachment to bone.
3. Increased bone present at implant interface. Various modifications on the technique have been
4. Increased biochemical interaction of implant with bone. employed, such as
• Dual acid-etched technique:[19] Proposed to produce
Different methods have been described in the literature that a microtexture rather than a macrotexture. It has
increase the surface roughness, such as:
been found that dual acid-etched surfaces enhance
1. Blasting :
the osteoconductive process through the attachment
2. Chemical etching
3. Porous surfaces of fibrin and osteogenic cells, resulting in bone
4. Plasma-sprayed surfaces formation directly on the surface of the implant.
5. Ion-sputtering coating Advantage of the dual acid-etched technique is
6. Anodized surface in higher adhesion and expression of platelet and
7. HA coating extracellular genes, which help in colonization of
osteoblasts at the site and promote osseointegration.
They are explained briefly as follows: • Sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) method: The
1. Blasting:Blasting implant surface with particles of various abbreviation SLA, as introduced by Buser et al. in a
diameters is one of the frequently used methods of histomorphometric study in 1991, stands for sand-
surface alteration.[13] blasted, large grit, acid etched.

Indian J Dent Res, 21(3), 2010 434

[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Sunday, May 20, 2018, IP: 106.208.199.199]

Surface treatment in endosseous implant Gupta, et al.

• The surface is produced by a large grit 250–500- • Fresh extraction sites.

µm blasting process followed by etching with • Newly grafted sites.
hydrochloric/sulfuric acid. Sandblasting results Advantages of HA coating are
in surface roughness and acid etching leads to • HA coating can lower the corrosion rates of the same
microtexture and cleaning.[20-22] These surfaces are substrate alloys.
known to have better bone integration as compared • HA coating can be credited with enabling to obtain
to the above-stated methods. improved bone implant attachment.[34,35]
• Have higher success rates in the maxilla.
3. Porous surfaces: These are produced when spherical • Being osteoconductive in nature, more bone
powder of the metallic/ceramic material becomes a deposition is noted.
coherent mass within the metallic core of the implant
body. These are characterized by pore size, shape, Disadvantages of HA coating are:
volume and depth, which are affected by the size of the • Delamination of coating leads to failure of implant.[36]
spherical particles and the temperature and pressure of • Dissolution/fracture of HA coating results in failure.
the sintering chamber. Advantages of this method are • Predisposes to plaque retention.
as follows:
• A secure 3D interlocking interface with bone is Various methods of HA coating have been described, which
observed. are as follows
• Predictable and minimal crestal bone remodeling. • Functionally graded coating:[37] The main disadvantage
• Short healing time. of plasma spraying coating is delamination. But, this
• Provide space, volume for cell migration and disadvantage is overcome by the use of HA along with
attachment and thus support contact osteogenesis. Ti6Al4V.[27] The coating becomes mechanically strong,
bioinert and biocompatible.
4. Plasma-sprayed surfaces: This process involves the • Antibiotic coating: Gentamycin along with the layer of
heating of HA by a plasma flame at a temperature of HA can be coated onto the implant surface. Gentamycin
approximately 15,000–20,000 K and HA is propelled acts as a local prophylactic agent along with systemic
onto the implant in an inert environment like argon to antibiotics in dental implant surgery.
a thickness of about 50–100 µm. Advantages are: • Laser ablation technique: [29,38,39] To control the
• Reported to increase the surface area of bone implant morphology of coating of HA, i.e. either crystalline or
interface and act similar to the 3D surface, which amorphous, this technique is best suited.
may stimulate adhesion osteogenesis.[20,23] • Pulsed laser deposition (PLD):[30,40] PLD is a unique
• Surface area to increase by 600%. physical vapor deposition process that uses a pulsed
• Increases tensile strength of the bone implant laser such as KrF to ablate the target material, forming
interface.[24] a highly energetic plume that deposits the film onto the
• Improves primary stability. substrate.
The PLD technique involves three main steps: ablation
5. Ion-sputtering coating: It is the process by which a thin of the target material, formation of a highly energetic
layer of HA can be coated onto an implant substrate. plume and the growth of the film on the substrate. A
This is performed by directing a beam of ion onto an high-power laser is used as an energy source to vaporize
HA block that is vaporized to create plasma and then a target containing components of the desired film.
recondensing this plasma onto the implant.[25-26] When the laser radiation is absorbed by a solid surface,
electromagnetic energy is converted into electronic
6. Anodized surface: Oxidation process can be used to excitation as well as chemical, mechanical and thermal
change the characteristic of the oxide layer and make energy to cause evaporation and plasma formation.
it more biocompatible. This is carried out by applying The ablation of the target forms a plume of energetic
a voltage on the titanium implant immersed in the atoms, electrons, ions and molecules. Inside the dense
electrolyte. This results in a surface with micropores of plume, the collisional mean free path is exceptionally
variable diameter and demonstrates lack of cytotoxicity small. Immediately after ablation, the plume expands
and increased cell attachment and proliferation.[27] from the target with in vacuum toward the substrate
surface. This is the latest method of coating HA onto an
7. HA coating:[28-32] HA coating was brought to the dental implant surface. HA is deposited onto pure Ti substrates
profession by De Groot.[33] at 400oC in a water vapor and oxygen atmosphere, the
pressure valve being in the range of 3.5 .10-1-10-1 torr.
Indications • Sputtering:[41-43] It is a process whereby, in a vacuum
• For type 4 bone (based on Misch and Judy chamber, atoms or molecules of a material are ejected
classification). from a target by bombardment of high-energy ions.

435 Indian J Dent Res, 21(3), 2010

[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Sunday, May 20, 2018, IP: 106.208.199.199]

Surface treatment in endosseous implant Gupta, et al.

The dislodged particles are deposited on a substrate method mainly endeavors to utilize current understanding
also placed in a vacuum chamber. There are various of biology and biochemistry of cellular function and
sputtering techniques, like diode sputtering, ion differentiation.[50-56]
sputtering, radiofrequent/direct current sputtering,
magnetron sputtering and reactive sputtering. All these The goal of biochemical surface modification is to
techniques are variants of the above-mentioned physical immobilize proteins, enzymes/peptides on the biomaterial
phenomenon. However, an inherent disadvantage is that for the purpose of inducing specific cell and tissue response
the deposition rate is very slow. The key advantages are: or, in other words, to control the tissue implant interface
• High deposition rates. with molecules delivered directly to the interface.[57]
• Ease of sputtering of most of the materials.
• High-purity films. Two main approaches have been suggested to achieve the
• Extremely high adhesion of the films. above-stated goal:
• Excellent coverage of highly difficult surface • The first approach is mainly directed to control cell–
geometry. biomaterial interaction utilizing cell adhesion molecules.[58]
• Ability to coat heat-sensitive substrates. A particular sequence, i.e. Arg–Gly–Asp(RGD) has
• Ease of automation and excellent uniform layers. been known to act as a mediator of attachment of cells
to several plasma and extracellular matrix proteins,
Various techniques of sputtering have been elicited in the including osteopontin, bone sialoprotein, fibronectin,
literature, the important ones being described below: etc., and researchers are trying to deposit this particular
• Ratio frequency sputtering (RF) technique: This sequence onto an implant to modulate the interface.
technique involves the deposition of HA in thin • The second approach mainly deals with the biomolecules
films.[44-45] Studies have shown that these coatings were with demonstrated osteotropic effects, and molecules
more retentive, with the chemical structure being like interleukin, growth factor 1 and 2, platelet growth
precisely controlled. The other major advantage of this factor, BMP, etc. are known to have this effect.
technique is that the design of the implant, particularly
threaded implant, is maintained. DRUG-COATED IMPLANTS
• Magnetron sputtering:[42,46] Magnetron sputtering is a
viable thin-film technique as it allows the mechanical Tetracycline
properties of Ti to be preserved while maintaining the As one of the chemical treatments, tetracycline-HCl
bioactivity of the coated HA. Films were deposited in functions as an antimicrobial agent capable of killing
a custom-built sputter deposition chamber at room microorganisms that may be present on the contaminated
temperature. The chamber was evacuated to a base implant surface. It also effectively removes the smear layer
pressure lower than 10_7 Torr. High-purity argon (Ar) as well as endotoxins from the implant surface. Further, it
gas was then back-filled into the chamber, bringing the inhibits collagenase activity, increases cell proliferation as
working pressure to 5*10_3 Torr. A constant flow of Ar well as attachment and bone healing.[59]
was supplied into the chamber during the deposition
process. Finally, it enhances blood clot attachment and retention on
the implant surface during the initial phase of the healing
This technique shows strong HA titanium bonding process and thus promotes re-osseointegration.
associated with outward diffusion of Ti into the HA layer,
forming TiO2 at the interface. CONCLUSION
Surface chemistry/chemical properties: Commercially pure Dental implants are valuable devices for restoring lost teeth.
titanium and Ti-6Al-4V are commonly used dental implant Implants are available in many shapes, sizes and length,
materials, although new alloys containing niobium, iron, using a variety of materials with different surface properties.
molybdenum, manganese and zirconia have been developed. Among the most desired characteristics of an implant are
those that ensure that the implant–tissue interface will be
The biomaterial surface interacts with water, ions and established quickly and can be maintained. The various
numerous biomolecules after implantation. The nature of methods of modifying the implant surface have been listed,
these interactions, such as hydroxylation of the oxide surface and these techniques have greatly influenced the quality of
by dissociative adsorption of water, formation of an electrical clinical service in implant prosthodontics.
double layer and protein adsorption and denaturation,
determine how cells and tissues respond to the implant. [47-49] REFERENCES
Biochemical methods: These methods offer an alternative/ 1. Dunlap J. Implants: Implications for general dentists. Dent Econ
adjunct to physiochemical and morphological methods. This 1988;78:101-12.

Indian J Dent Res, 21(3), 2010 436

[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Sunday, May 20, 2018, IP: 106.208.199.199]

Surface treatment in endosseous implant Gupta, et al.

2. Graves E. Vital and Health Statistics, Detailed Diagnoses and 1997;76:1485-94.

Procedures, National Hospital Discharge Survey, 1993. Hyattsville, 26. Yoshinari M, Klinge B, Dérand T. The biocompatibility (cell culture and
MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 1995. histologic study) of hydroxyapatite-coated implants created by ion
3. Ziats NP, Miller KM, Anderson JM. In vivo and in vitro interaction of cells beam dynamic mixing method. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;17:96-100.
with biomaterials. Biomaterials 1988;9:5-13. 27. Hahn H, Palich W. Preliminary evaluation of porus meta surfaced
4. Ito Y, Kajihara M, Imanishi Y. Materials for enhancing cell adhesion titanium for orthopedic implants. J Biomed Mater Res 1970;45:71-7.
by immobilization of cell-adhesive peptide. J Biomed Mater Res 28. Kasemo B. Biocompatibility of titanium implants: Surface science
1991;25:1325-37. aspects. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:832-7.
5. Baier RE, Meyer AE. Implant surface preparation. Int J Oral Maxillofac 29. Ducheyne P, Van Raemdonck W, Heughebaert JC, Heughebaert M.
Implants 1998;3:9-20. Structural analysis of hydroxyapatite coatings on titanium. Biomaterials
6. Krukowski M, Shively RA, Osdoby P, Eppley BL. Stimulation of 1986;7:97-103.
craniofacial and intramedullary bone formation by negatively charged 30. Manley MT, Koch R. Clinical results with the hydroxyapatite-coated
beads. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990;48:468-75. Omnifit hip stem. Dent Clin North Am 1992;36:257-62.
7. Puleo DA, Thomas MV. Implant Surfaces. Dent Clin North Am 31. Denissen HW, Kalk W, Veldhuis AA, van den Hooff A. Eleven-year of
2006;50:323-38. study of hydroxyapatite implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:706-12.
8. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Suggested guidelines for the topographic 32. Gross KA, Berndt CC, Goldschlag DD, Iacono VJ. In vitro changes of
evaluation of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants hydroxyapatite coatings. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:589-97.
2000;15:331-44. 33. de Groot K, Geesink R, Klein CP, Serekian P. Plasma sprayed coating of
9. Brunette DM. The effects of implant surface topography on the hydroxyapatite. J Biomed Mater Res 1987;21:1375-81.
behavior of cells. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:231-46. 34. Strnad Z, Strnad J, Povýsil C, Urban K. Effect of plasma-sprayed
10. Rompen E, Domken O, Degidi M, Pontes AE, Piattelli A. The effect hydroxyapatite coating on the osteoconductivity of commercially pure
of material characteristics, of surface topography and of implant titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:483-90.
components and connections on soft tissue integration: a literature 35. Vercaigne S, Wolke JG, Naert I, Jansen JA. Bone healing capacity of
review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:55-67. titanium plasma sprayed and hydroxylapatite coated oral implants.
11. Sykaras N, Iacopino AM, Marker VA, Triplett RG, Woody RD. Implant Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:261-71.
materials, designs, and surface topographies: their effect on 36. Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 3rd ed. Mosby; 2008. p. 614.
osseointegration. a literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 37. Kangasniemi IM, Verheyen CC, van der Velde EA, de Groot K. In vivo
2000;15:675-90. tensile testing of fluorapatite and hydroxylapatite plasma sprayed
12. Brunette DM. The effects of implant surface topography on the coatings. J Biomed Mater Res 1994;28:563-72.
behavior of cells. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;3:231-46. 38. Guillot O, Gomez-San Roman R, Perrie`re J, Hermann J, Craciun V,
13. Ji H, Marquis PM. Preparation and characterization of Al2O3 reinforced Boulmer-Leborgne C, et al. Growth of apatite films by laser ablation:
hydroxyapatite. Biomaterials 1992;13:744-8. reduction of the droplet a real density. J Appl Phys 1996;80:1803-8.
14. Anselme K. Osteoblast adhesion on biomaterials. Biomaterials 39. Clèries L, Martínez E, Fernández-Pradas JM, Sardin G, Esteve J, et al.
2000;21:667-81. Mechanical properties of calcium phosphate coatings deposited by
15. Zhu X, Chen J, Scheideler L, Reichl R, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Effect of laser ablation. Biomaterials 2000;21:967-71.
topography and composition of titanium surface oxides on osteoblasts 40. Fernandez-Pradas JM, Clèries L, Martinez E, Sardin G, Esteve J, Morenza
response. Biomaterials 2004;25:4087-103. JL. Influence of thickness on the properties of hydroxyapatite coatings
16. Aparicio C, Gil FJ, Planell JA, Engel E. Human-osteoblast proliferation deposited by KrF laser ablation. Biomaterials 2001;22:2171-5.
and differentiation on grit-blasted and bioactive titanium for dental 41. Jansen JA, Wolke JG, Swann S, Van der Waerden JP, de Groot K.
applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2002;13:1105-11. Application of magnetron sputtering for producing ceramic coatings
17. Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Higginbottom FL, Hermann JS, on implant material. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993;4:28-34.
Makins SR, Buser D. Evaluation of an endosseous titanium implant 42. Porter AE, Rea SM, Galtrey M, Best SM, Barber ZH. Production of thin
with sandblasted and acid-etched surface in the canine mandible: film silicon-doped hydroxyaptite via sputter deposition. J Mater Sci
Radiographic results. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:240-52. 2004;39:1895-8.
18. Bowers KT, Keller JC, Randolph BA, Wick DG, Michaels CM. Optimization 43. Yang Y, Kim KH, Ong JL. A review on calcium phosphate coatings
of surface micromorphology for enhanced osteoblast responses invitro. produced using a sputtering process: an alternative to plasma spraying.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:302-10. Biomaterials 2005;26:327-37.
19. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B. Bone tissue response to 44. Ong JL, Bessho K, Cavin R, Carnes DL. Bone response to radio frequency
commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and course particles sputtered calcium phosphate implants and titanium implants in vivo. J
of aluminium oxide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:38-45. Biomed Mater Res 2002;59:184-90.
20. Orsini G, Assenza B, Scarano A, Piattelli M, Piattelli A. Surface analysis 45. Wolke JG, de Groot K, Jansen JA. In vivo dissolution behavior of
of machined versus sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implants. various RF magnetron sputtered Ca-P coatings. J Biomed Mater Res
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:779-84. 1998;39:524-30.
21. Klokkevold PR, Johnson P, Dadgostari S, Caputo A, Davies JE, Nishimura 46. Wolke JG, van Dijk K, Schaeken HG, de Groot K, Jansen JA. Study of
RD. Early endosseous integration enhanced by dual acid etching of the surface characteristics of magnetron-sputter calcium phosphate
titanium: a torque removal study in the rabbit. Clin Oral Implants Res coatings. J Biomed Mater Res 1994;28:1477-84.
2001;12:350-7. 47. Carlsson LV, Alberktsson T, Berman C. Bone response to plasma-cleaned
22. Galli C, Guizzardi S, Passeri G, Martini D, Tinti A, Mauro G, et al. titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:199-204.
Comparison of human mandibular osteoblasts grown on two 48. Lavos-Valereto IC, Costa I, Wolynec S. The electrochemical behavior
commercially available titanium implant surfaces. J Periodontol of Ti-6Al-7Nb alloy with and without plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite
2005;76:364-72. coating in Hank’s solution. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;63:664-70.
23. Yoshinari M, Ohtsuka Y, Dérand T. Thin hydroxyapatite coating 49. Yu SR, Zhang XP, He ZM, Liu YH, Liu ZH. Effects of Ce on the short-term
produced by the ion beam dynamic mixing method. Biomaterials biocompatibility of Ti-Fe-Mo-Mn-Nb-Zr alloy for dental materials. J
1994;15:529-35. Mater Sci Mater Med 2004;15:687-91.
24. Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Lussi A, Higginbottom FL, Buser D. Bone 50. Lumbikanonda N, Sammons R. Bone Cell Attachment to Dental Implants
response to unloaded and loaded titanium implant with a sandblasted of Different Surface Characteristics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
and acid etched surface: a histometric study in the canine mandible. 2001;16:627-36.
J Biomed Mater Res 1998;40:1-11. 51. Sonnleitner D, Huemer P, Sullivan DY. A simplified technique for
25. Yoshinari M, Watanabe Y, Ohtsuka Y, Dérand T. Solubility control producing platelet-rich plasma and platelet concentrate for intraoral
of thin calcium-phosphate coating with rapid heating. J Dent Res bone grafting techniques: A technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac

437 Indian J Dent Res, 21(3), 2010

[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Sunday, May 20, 2018, IP: 106.208.199.199]

Surface treatment in endosseous implant Gupta, et al.

Implants 2000;15:879-82. human bone morphogenetic protein-2 stimulation of bone formation

52. Puleo DA. Biochemical surface modification of Co-Cr-Mo. Biomaterials around endosseous dental implants. J Periodontol 1999;70:139-50.
1996;17:217-22. 58. Brunski JB, Puleo DA, Nanci A. Biomaterials and Biomechanics of Oral
53. Brunski JB, Moccia AF Jr, Pollack SR, Korostoff E, Trachtenberg DI. The and Maxillofacial Implants: Current Status and Future Developments.
influence of functional use of endosseous dental implants on the tissue- Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:15-46.
implant interface: I, histological aspects. J Dent Res 1979;58:1953-69. 59. Mohan S, Baylink DJ. Bone growth factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res
54. Kummer FJ, Ricci JL, Blumenthal NC. RF plasma treatment of metallic 1991;263:30-48.
implant surfaces. J Appl Biomater 1992;3:39-44.
55. Dee KC, Rueger DC, Andersen TT, Bizios R. Conditions which promote
mineralization at the bone-implant interface: A model in vitro study.
Biomaterials 1996;17:209-15. How to cite this article: Gupta A, Dhanraj M, Sivagami G. Status of surface
treatment in endosseous implant: A literary overview. Indian J Dent Res
56. Yoshinari M, Oda Y, Ueki H, Yokose S. Immobilization of bisphosphonates
2010;21:433-8.
on surface modified titanium. Biomaterials 2001;22:709-15.
57. Cochran DL, Schenk R, Buser D, Wozney JM, Jones AA. Recombinant Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Indian J Dent Res, 21(3), 2010 438