Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 201    
     


 
Table of Contents   
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 1-4
Dental implant bioactive surface modifiers: An update


1 Department of Preventive Dentistry, Division of Periodontics, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Preventive Dentistry, Division of Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Date of Submission25-Aug-2018
Date of Acceptance03-Sep-2018
Date of Web Publication14-Feb-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Osamah Mohammed Al Mugeiren
Department Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh 11681
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_303_18

Rights and Permissions

   Abstract 

Objectives: Main purpose of this review was to present an update on various coating materials utilized in improving the surface chemistry of the dental implants.
Methods: Literature search was carried out in various on-line databases such as PubMed, Medline, Google scholar, EBSCO, Wiley Science Library, and Saudi Digital Library using appropriate keywords (dental implant surface coatings, dental implant surface modifiers, and dental surface coatings).
Results: Total of 569 studies were retrieved. All the relevant studies among them were reviewed and compiled.
Conclusion: Current implant surface's biomimetic coatings offer many benefits compared to the traditional plasma sprayed coatings. Further incorporation of biomimetic coatings with various material has lead improvement in mechanical and biological properties of implants.


Keywords: Bioactive surface, calcium phosphate, coatings, dental implant, modifiers


How to cite this article:
Al Mugeiren OM, Baseer MA. Dental implant bioactive surface modifiers: An update. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2019;9:1-4

How to cite this URL:
Al Mugeiren OM, Baseer MA. Dental implant bioactive surface modifiers: An update. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Oct 14];9:1-4. Available from: http://www.jispcd.org/text.asp?2019/9/1/1/252262



   Introduction Top


The replacement of missing teeth with endosseous dental implants is considered as an effective and acceptable treatment method. Moreover, dental implants are standards of care for increasingly aged population with edentulous jaws.[1],[2] Osseointegration refers to the direct association of osseous tissue with an inert alloplastic biomaterial surface.[3] There is enhanced interest in the planning and advancement of implants to reduce failure and improve longevity.[4]

The use of micro-rough surface topography has increased the biomechanical properties of the implant–bone interface. Several strategies for improving the biocompatibility and osteogenic capacity of metal implants have been developed ranging from surface modification by inorganic mineral coatings to biocoatings of implant surfaces to control peri-implant tissue responses.[5]

The real test in implantology today is to join current information in materials science, tissue engineering, and biology to configure metal implant surfaces fit for ideal osseointegration and in the meantime giving epigenetic signs to cells in the peri-implant tissues to induce appropriate natural reactions that support bone recuperating and osseointegration over unfavorable impacts and problematic treatment results. Hence, the main aim of this review is to present brief update on the various coating materials utilized to improve the surface chemistry of the dental implants.


   Materials and Methods Top


Literature review strategy

Literature search was carried out in various online databases such as PubMed, Medline, Google scholar, EBSCO, Wiley Science Library, and Saudi Digital Library using appropriate keywords (dental implant surface coatings, dental implant surface modifiers, and dental surface coatings). All the pertinent information related to the dental surface modifiers was reviewed and compiled.

The study proposal was submitted to the research center of Riyadh Elm University and registered (FRP/2018/219).


   Discussion Top


The physical, chemical, and mechanical characteristics of the surfaces can be altered by utilizing following methods: (1) addition of a new layer to the surface, (2) changing the surface by applying physical or chemical agents such as plasma or wet chemicals, and (3) subtraction or attrition method to modify the mechanical surfaces.[6],[7]

Biomimetic Ca-P coatings

Many years of research outcome resulted in mineralized tissues or materials engineered by living organisms in the presence of low-temperature aqueous conditions. These engineered products have excellent mechanical properties and many specific biological functions.[8]

Biomimetic Ca-P coating on load-bearing dental implants has been developed to take advantage of the superior mechanical properties (titanium and its alloys, alumina and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene) of substrates and excellent biocompatibility of Ca-P materials. The conventional technique for applying a Ca-P coating on metallic implants is plasma spraying. However, plasma spraying has limited only to implants with porous surfaces and polymers.[9],[10] Various techniques can be employed to modify the titanium implant surface to enable the formation of biomimetic Ca-P coatings, but none of them matched plasma spraying.

The biomimetic coating approach is focused on growing a Ca-P thin layer on metals or other implant materials from a physiologically related supersaturated calcifying arrangement at surrounding temperature by mimicking the common bone or tooth mineralization process. Biomimetic approach has many benefits over plasma spraying and considered alternative to plasma spraying in coating of implants.[2] Recently, it has been demonstrated that the formation of biomimetic Ca-P coatings can be facilitated by fluoride phosphate substitution on the titanium dioxide surface, leading to localized calcium apatite deposition.[11] Moreover, there is promotion of human stem cell proliferation and differentiation though elevated bone morphogenic protein-2 (BMP-2), RunX-2, and bone sialoprotein expression.[5]

Recently, Marques et al. have shown that the use of higher Ca/P ratios and the addition of silver nanoparticles into the oxide layer presented better surface properties, tribocorrosive behavior, and cell responses of dental implants.[12]

Coatings of therapeutic and bioactive agents

Dental implants play an important role in the substitution of teeth/root frameworks, the repair of large bone deformities, and the bone fracture healing. However, implant loosening, post surgical disease, fracture non-union, and erratic periodontal regeneration are the issues still concerned with implant coatings. There is a clinical need to apply osteoinductive as well as antimicrobial agents locally to the implant site to help in the reconciliation and recuperating of bone and delicate tissues. Thin coatings of CaPO4 act to intriguing vehicles for such endeavors. Ca-P materials are thought to be among the most imperative medication on account of their fantastic biocompatibility and wide clinical acknowledgment.[13]

Presently, incorporation of therapeutic and bioactive agents into Ca-P coating is most preferred. The advancement into the biomimetic coating methods has created a possibility of incorporation of therapeutic agents directly within the Ca-P. The molecules then get dissolved in the calcifying solution to be adsorbed or incorporated into the Ca-P coating during the coating process. This Ca-P coating has been utilized as carriers for proteins and therapeutic agents.[8]

Albumin

Bovine serum albumin was used as a model protein to examine the possibility of protein incorporation into and release from a biomimetic Ca-P coating. It is inferred from studies that once a protein has been incorporated into a biomimetic Ca-P coating, its long-term sustained release can be achieved along with the degradation of Ca-P coating during the implantation. Bovine serum albumin is combined with calcium phosphate coating on implants by applying biomimetic techniques resulting in a remarkable change in crystal morphology and composition. This is suggestive of co-precipitation, a novel method of combining osteoinductive agents into calcium phosphate coatings, there by creating a coating that is both osteoconductive as well as osteoinductive in nature.[14]

Bone morphogenic proteins

Study conducted in orthotropic animal models with fibrous nonunion fractures BMP-2 and BMP-7 has been found to be innocuous and effective in improving and speeding up bone healing process. Moreover, BMP-6 utilized to produce a biomimetic microenvironment to encourage osteogenic activity under physiological conditions with least paracrine signalization.[15] Moreover, BMP2-coprecipitated calcium phosphate granules in animal models suggesting a potential osteoinducer to enhance the therapeutic effects of the graft materials.[16] Hence, carrier should be selected carefully for the effective use of osteoinductive agents. The combination of biomimetic Ca-P coatings and osteoinductive agents can enhance inductive capacity.[5]

Bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates are the current therapeutic agents of choice for patients with osteoporosis. Through osteoclast inhibition, the systematic use of bisphosphonates, including etidronate, alendronate, pamidronate, and risedronate, can lead to reduced bone turnover, increased bone mass, and improved mineralization. Studies have shown similar promising results for the local use of bisphosphonates at implantation sites. Beneficial effects were obvious when implant sites received irrigation of aminobisphosphonate solution indicating higher efficacy in increasing bone formation.[17] Animal model studies have suggested that the local delivery of bisphosphonate compounds around implants significantly enhance osseointegration of implants.[18]

However, recent meta-analysis failed to establish the actual effect of bisphosphonates on the osseointegration and survival of dental implants due to the lack of proper studies.[19]

Antibiotics

One of the advantages of Ca-P coatings is the ability to serve as carrier of antimicrobial agents. Sufficient concentration of antibiotics can be impregnated into the coating to have a sustained release of the drug. Coprecipitation with biomimetic Ca-P coating can provide an opportunity to load higher amount of antibiotics, thus preventing postsurgical infection at high-risk site of implants for infection.[20] The calcium phosphate coatings with fluoride and zinc ions have shown bactericidal and potential bioactive properties for dental implants.[21] Further, utilization of ceramic biocomposites to deliver antibiotics along with other materials such as basic major proteins, bisphosphonates, and growth factors is underway.[20] Moreover, nanostructured titanium-based biomaterials developed to enhance osteointegration and prevent from bacterial infection.[22],[23]

Amelogenin

Amelogenin proteins, the important components of the developing dental enamel extracellular matrix have been found to facilitate growth of apatite crystals during the formation of enamel. The use of normally occurring matrix proteins that control mineral crystal development has potential to biologically regulate bone formation on dental implant surfaces. Therefore, enamel extracellular proteins are considered as possible material for bioactive implant coatings. Enamel matrix protein deposition precedes hard-tissue development in the jaw bones. Therefore, pretreated implant surface with enamel matrix could start cell interaction leading regeneration of bone.[24]In vitro studies conducted among rats have shown that the initial adhesion and induction of hard-tissue differentiation were improved by amelogenin coating. In addition, new bone formation was obvious surrounding implanted material.[25]

Surface texture

Osseointegration was the term first coined by Brånemark in 1952, that implies to an anchorage mechanism, whereby artificial components can be reliably and predictably incorporated into living bone.[26] This anchorage can persist under all normal loading conditions. Six factors are prerequisites for establishing reliable osseointegration: implant material, implant design, surface quality, status of the bone, surgical technique, and implant loading conditions. The role of material properties for achieving a successful long-term clinical performance is related to the type of local tissue conditions and clinical needs. Inertness of a material is the preferred characteristic for most of the long term implants placed inside the bone.[27]

The surface properties of materials are regarded as critical for the tissue response with materials. Micro- and nano-textured surfaces have influence on cell behavior in many ways. Surface topographical features range from the nanometer to the millimeter are significant for cellular responses as well as the integrated tissue response around the implants. The claim of a roughened oral implant surface is based on an improved micromechanical interlock. It is generally agreed that an increase of surface roughness promotes the incorporation of implants in bone.[28]

Modification of the surface oxide

The surface oxide layer of titanium implants can be manipulated chemically and there has been speculation whether the biological properties of the oxide surface may then be changed and even improved. The surface oxide may be modified using different techniques such as heat treatment, sol-gel-derived oxidation, and electrochemical oxidation. The sol-gel technique is another interesting method for the modification of oral implant surfaces. Hydrophilic, roughened, and partly porous sol-gel-processed titanium alloy surfaces reveal higher osteoblast-like cell adhesion and mineralization in vitro.[28]

Fluoride

Manipulation of the titanium dioxide is possible by use of hydrogen fluoride at low concentrations without affecting surface micro-texture significantly. Little amount of fluoride is incorporated within the titanium dioxide. This ion implantation within superficial layer will alter the biological response of the material. Bone density and calcification of the bone have improved if fluoride is available during remodeling process of the bone. Fluoride is considered as enhancer of bone cells growth and needs appropriate growth factors for induction of calcification.[28]


   Conclusion Top


Today's implant surface biomimetic coatings have lot of benefits compared to the traditional plasma sprayed coatings. Biomimetic Ca-P coating of implants is a perfect carrier for the osteoinductive proteins, growth factors, and antibiotics. Incorporation of biomimetic coatings with amelogenin has lead enhanced mechanical and biological properties. Manipulation of implant surface topographies permits site-directed successful bone regeneration therapies.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Douglass CW, Shih A, Ostry L. Will there be a need for complete dentures in the United States in 2020? J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:5-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Douglass CW, Watson AJ. Future needs for fixed and removable partial dentures in the United States. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:9-14.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Boyde A. A 3-D model of enamel development at the scale of one inch to the micron. Adv Dent Res 1987;1:135-40.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Young CS, Terada S, Vacanti JP, Honda M, Bartlett JD, Yelick PC, et al. Tissue engineering of complex tooth structures on biodegradable polymer scaffolds. J Dent Res 2002;81:695-700.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Moradian-Oldak J, Wen HB, Schneider GB, Stanford CM. Tissue engineering strategies for the future generation of dental implants. Periodontol 2000 2006;41:157-76.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Mandracci P, Mussano F, Rivolo P, Carossa S. Surface treatments and functional coatings for biocompatibility improvement and bacterial adhesion reduction in dental implantology. Coatings 2016;6:7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Variola F, Yi JH, Richert L, Wuest JD, Rosei F, Nanci A, et al. Tailoring the surface properties of ti6Al4V by controlled chemical oxidation. Biomaterials 2008;29:1285-98.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Lin X, de Groot K, Wang D, Hu Q, Wismeijer D, Liu Y, et al. A review paper on biomimetic calcium phosphate coatings. Open Biomed Eng J 2015;9:56-64.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
de Groot K, Wolke JG, Jansen JA. Calcium phosphate coatings for medical implants. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 1998;212:137-47.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Epinette JA, Manley MT, D'Antonio JA, Edidin AA, Capello WN. A 10-year minimum follow-up of hydroxyapatite-coated threaded cups: Clinical, radiographic and survivorship analyses with comparison to the literature. J Arthroplasty 2003;18:140-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Ellingsen JE. A study on the mechanism of protein adsorption to TiO2. Biomaterials 1991;12:593-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Marques Ida S, Alfaro MF, Saito MT, da Cruz NC, Takoudis C, Landers R, et al. Biomimetic coatings enhance tribocorrosion behavior and cell responses of commercially pure titanium surfaces. Biointerphases 2016;11:031008.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Shinto Y, Uchida A, Korkusuz F, Araki N, Ono K. Calcium hydroxyapatite ceramic used as a delivery system for antibiotics. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992;74:600-4.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Yu X, Qu H, Knecht DA, Wei M. Incorporation of bovine serum albumin into biomimetic coatings on titanium with high loading efficacy and its release behavior. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2009;20:287-94.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Brigaud I, Agniel R, Leroy-Dudal J, Kellouche S, Ponche A, Bouceba T, et al. Synergistic effects of BMP-2, BMP-6 or BMP-7 with human plasma fibronectin onto hydroxyapatite coatings: A comparative study. Acta Biomater 2017;55:481-92.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Liu T, Zheng Y, Wu G, Wismeijer D, Pathak JL, Liu Y, et al. BMP2-coprecipitated calcium phosphate granules enhance osteoinductivity of deproteinized bovine bone, and bone formation during critical-sized bone defect healing. Sci Rep 2017;7:418.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Aggarwal R, Babaji P, Nathan SS, Attokaran G, Santosh Kumar SM, Sathnoorkar S, et al. Comparative clinicoradiographical evaluation of effect of aminobisphosphonate (sodium alendronate) on peri-implant bone status: Controlled clinical trial. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2016;6:285-90.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Alenezi A, Chrcanovic B, Wennerberg A. Effects of local drug and chemical compound delivery on bone regeneration around dental implants in animal models: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33:e1-18.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Bisphosphonates and dental implants: A meta-analysis. Quintessence Int 2016;47:329-42.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Ferguson J, Diefenbeck M, McNally M. Ceramic biocomposites as biodegradable antibiotic carriers in the treatment of bone infections. J Bone Jt Infect 2017;2:38-51.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Kulkarni Aranya A, Pushalkar S, Zhao M, LeGeros RZ, Zhang Y, Saxena D, et al. Antibacterial and bioactive coatings on titanium implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A 2017;105:2218-27.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Jäger M, Jennissen HP, Dittrich F, Fischer A, Köhling HL. Antimicrobial and osseointegration properties of nanostructured titanium orthopaedic implants. Materials (Basel) 2017;10. pii: E1302.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Parnia F, Yazdani J, Javaherzadeh V, Maleki Dizaj S. Overview of nanoparticle coating of dental implants for enhanced osseointegration and antimicrobial purposes. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2017;20:148-60.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Wen HB, Moradian-Oldak J. Modification of calcium-phosphate coatings on titanium by recombinant amelogenin. J Biomed Mater Res A 2003;64:483-90.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Terada C, Komasa S, Kusumoto T, Kawazoe T, Okazaki J. Effect of amelogenin coating of a nano-modified titanium surface on bioactivity. Int J Mol Sci 2018;19. pii: E1274.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Brånemark R, Brånemark PI, Rydevik B, Myers RR. Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation: A review. J Rehabil Res Dev 2001;38:175-81.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Albrektsson T. Direct bone anchorage of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:255-61.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Ellingsen JE, Thomsen P, Lyngstadaas SP. Advances in dental implant materials and tissue regeneration. Periodontol 2000 2006;41:136-56.  Back to cited text no. 28
    



This article has been cited by
1 Bioactive Coating on Titanium Dental Implants for Improved Anticorrosion Protection: A Combined Experimental and Theoretical Study
Marianne Katic,Marianne Šaric,Marianne Despotovic,Marianne Matijakovic,Marianne Petkovic,Marianne Petrovic
Coatings. 2019; 9(10): 612
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (492 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed951    
    Printed60    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded219    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal