Comparison Between Micro- and Micro-Nano Surface Texturization in the Initial Osseointegration Process: An Experimental In Vitro and In Vivo Preclinical Study.
Sergio Alexandre Gehrke, Eleani Maria da Costa, Jaime Aramburú Júnior, Tiago Luis Eilers Treichel, Massimo Del Fabbro, Antonio Scarano
{"title":"Comparison Between Micro- and Micro-Nano Surface Texturization in the Initial Osseointegration Process: An Experimental In Vitro and In Vivo Preclinical Study.","authors":"Sergio Alexandre Gehrke, Eleani Maria da Costa, Jaime Aramburú Júnior, Tiago Luis Eilers Treichel, Massimo Del Fabbro, Antonio Scarano","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering12020175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The physicochemical changes of the surface aim to improve cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation, that is, better biological interaction with the cells and, consequently, with the peri-implant tissues. In the present study, implants with the same macrogeometry were compared in vitro and in vivo, but with two different surfaces: micro-rough and a new micro-nano-rough surface.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 90 implants were used, 10 of which were used for in vitro surface characterization (n = 5 per group) through scanning electron microscopy (SEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), and surface roughness measurements. For in vivo tests, 80 implants (n = 40 per group) were used in 20 rabbits (n = 2 implants per tibia). Two experimental groups were created: a control group, where the implants had a surface treated by sandblasting with titanium oxide microparticles, and a test group, where the implants were sandblasted using the same process as the previous group plus acid conditioned. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured by resonance frequency (initially and at both euthanasia times). Animals were euthanized 3 and 5 weeks after implantation (n = 10 animals per time). Ten samples from each group at each time point were evaluated by removal torque (RTv). Another ten samples from each group were evaluated histologically and histomorphometrically, measuring the percentage of bone-to-implant contact (%BIC) and the bone area fraction occupancy (%BAFO).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In vitro, it was possible to observe a more homogeneous surface for the test group compared to the control group. ISQ values showed statistical differences at both 3 and 5 weeks (test > control). For RTv, the values were: 44.5 ± 4.25 Ncm (control group) and 48.6 ± 3.17 Ncm (test group) for the time of 3 weeks; 64.3 ± 4.50 Ncm (control group) and 76.1 ± 4.18 Ncm (test group) at 5 weeks. The %BIC and %BAFO values measured in both groups and at both times did not show significant differences (<i>p</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The higher removal torque and ISQ values presented in the samples from the test group compared to the control group indicate that there was an acceleration in the mineralization process of the newly formed bone matrix.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"12 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11851884/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020175","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The physicochemical changes of the surface aim to improve cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation, that is, better biological interaction with the cells and, consequently, with the peri-implant tissues. In the present study, implants with the same macrogeometry were compared in vitro and in vivo, but with two different surfaces: micro-rough and a new micro-nano-rough surface.
Materials and methods: A total of 90 implants were used, 10 of which were used for in vitro surface characterization (n = 5 per group) through scanning electron microscopy (SEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), and surface roughness measurements. For in vivo tests, 80 implants (n = 40 per group) were used in 20 rabbits (n = 2 implants per tibia). Two experimental groups were created: a control group, where the implants had a surface treated by sandblasting with titanium oxide microparticles, and a test group, where the implants were sandblasted using the same process as the previous group plus acid conditioned. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured by resonance frequency (initially and at both euthanasia times). Animals were euthanized 3 and 5 weeks after implantation (n = 10 animals per time). Ten samples from each group at each time point were evaluated by removal torque (RTv). Another ten samples from each group were evaluated histologically and histomorphometrically, measuring the percentage of bone-to-implant contact (%BIC) and the bone area fraction occupancy (%BAFO).
Results: In vitro, it was possible to observe a more homogeneous surface for the test group compared to the control group. ISQ values showed statistical differences at both 3 and 5 weeks (test > control). For RTv, the values were: 44.5 ± 4.25 Ncm (control group) and 48.6 ± 3.17 Ncm (test group) for the time of 3 weeks; 64.3 ± 4.50 Ncm (control group) and 76.1 ± 4.18 Ncm (test group) at 5 weeks. The %BIC and %BAFO values measured in both groups and at both times did not show significant differences (p > 0.05).
Conclusions: The higher removal torque and ISQ values presented in the samples from the test group compared to the control group indicate that there was an acceleration in the mineralization process of the newly formed bone matrix.
期刊介绍:
Aims
Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal:
● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings.
● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed.
● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds.
Scope
● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces
● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices
● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc.
● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology
● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering
● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation
● Translational bioengineering