Histomorphometric and histologic evaluation of titanium–zirconium (aTiZr) implants with anodized surfaces

  • Ajay Sharma
  • A. James McQuillan
  • Yo Shibata
  • Lavanya A. Sharma
  • John Neil Waddell
  • Warwick John Duncan
Biomaterials Synthesis and Characterization Original Research
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biomaterials Synthesis and Characterization


The choice of implant surface has a significant influence on osseointegration. Modification of TiZr surface by anodization is reported to have the potential to modulate the osteoblast cell behaviour favouring more rapid bone formation. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of anodizing the surface of TiZr discs with respect to osseointegration after four weeks implantation in sheep femurs. Titanium (Ti) and TiZr discs were anodized in an electrolyte containing dl-α-glycerophosphate and calcium acetate at 300 V. The surface characteristics were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy, electron dispersive spectroscopy, atomic force microscopy and goniometry. Forty implant discs with thickness of 1.5 and 10 mm diameter (10 of each-titanium, titanium–zirconium, anodized titanium and anodized titanium–zirconium) were placed in the femoral condyles of 10 sheep. Histomorphometric and histologic analysis were performed 4 weeks after implantation. The anodized implants displayed hydrophilic, porous, nano-to-micrometer scale roughened surfaces. Energy dispersive spectroscopy analysis revealed calcium and phosphorous incorporation into the surface of both titanium and titanium–zirconium after anodization. Histologically there was new bone apposition on all implanted discs, slightly more pronounced on anodised discs. The percentage bone-to-implant contact measurements of anodized implants were higher than machined/unmodified implants but there was no significant difference between the two groups with anodized surfaces (P > 0.05, n = 10). The present histomorphometric and histological findings confirm that surface modification of titanium–zirconium by anodization is similar to anodised titanium enhances early osseointegration compared to machined implant surfaces.


Anodize Surface Methyl Violet TiZr Calcium Acetate Bone Graft Material 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study was funded by Dentsply, Australia and Lottery Health Research Grant, New Zealand. We wish to acknowledge the assistance of Liz Girwan, Otago Centre for Electron Microscopy, University of Otago, for her assistance in the SEM. We wish to acknowledge the assistance of Andrew McNaughton, Otago Centre for Confocal Microscopy, University of Otago, for his assistance in the confocal microscopy. We acknowledge the assistance of Dave Mathews, Hercus Taieri Research Unit for his assistance in animal surgeries.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We the authors of this manuscript declare that there is no potential conflict of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.


  1. 1.
    Sharma A, McQuillan AJ, Sharma LA, Waddell JN, Shibata Y, Duncan WJ. Spark anodization of titanium–zirconium alloy: surface characterization and bioactivity assessment. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2015;26(8):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duncan W, Lee M, Dovban A, Hendra N, Ershadi S, Rumende H. Anodization increases early integration of Osstem implants in sheep femurs. Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg. 2008;19:152–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Park IS, Lee MH. Effects of anodic spark oxidation by pulse power on titanium substrates. Surf Interface Anal. 2011;43(7):1030–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Park KH, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Kim SK, Lee JB, Kim SH, et al. Osseointegration of anodized titanium implants under different current voltages: a rabbit study. J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34(7):517–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shibata Y, Kawai H, Yamamoto H, Igarashi T, Miyazaki T. Antibacterial titanium plate anodized by being discharged in NaCl solution exhibits cell compatibility. J Dent Res. 2004;83(2):115–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Suh JY, Jang BC, Zhu X, Ong JL, Kim K. Effect of hydrothermally treated anodic oxide films on osteoblast attachment and proliferation. Biomaterials. 2003;24(2):347–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sul Y-T, Johansson C, Byon E, Albrektsson T. The bone response of oxidized bioactive and non-bioactive titanium implants. Biomaterials. 2005;26(33):6720–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park IS, Lee MH, Bae TS, Seol KW. Effects of anodic oxidation parameters on a modified titanium surface. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2008;84(2):422–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sul Y-T. The significance of the surface properties of oxidized titanium to the bone response: special emphasis on potential biochemical bonding of oxidized titanium implant. Biomaterials. 2003;24(22):3893–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhu X, Chen J, Scheideler L, Reichl R, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Effects of topography and composition of titanium surface oxides on osteoblast responses. Biomaterials. 2004;25(18):4087–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhu X, Kim K-H, Jeong Y. Anodic oxide films containing Ca and P of titanium biomaterial. Biomaterials. 2001;22(16):2199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Le Guéhennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater. 2007;23(7):844–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gottlow J, Barkarmo S, Sennerby L. An experimental comparison of two different clinically used implant designs and surfaces. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(Suppl 1):e204–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sul YT, Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Which surface properties enhance bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, TiUnite, and Osseotite implant surfaces. Int J Prosthodont. 2006;19(4):319–28.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kobayashi E, Matsumoto S, Doi H, Yoneyama T, Hamanaka H. Mechanical properties of the binary titanium-zirconium alloys and their potential for biomedical materials. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;8(29):943–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gottlow J, Dard M, Kjellson F, Obrecht M, Sennerby L. Evaluation of a new titanium-zirconium dental implant: a biomechanical and histological comparative study in the mini pig. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(4):538–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barter S, Stone P, Bragger U. A pilot study to evaluate the success and survival rate of titanium-zirconium implants in partially edentulous patients: results after 24 months of follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;7(23):873–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bernhard N, Berner S, De Wild M, Wieland M. The binary TiZr alloy—a newly developed Ti alloy for use in dental implants. Forum Implantol. 2009;5:30–9.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977;16:1–132.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jokstad A. Oral implants—the future. Aust Dent J. 2008;53:S89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Littell RC, Henry PR, Ammerman CB. Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. J Anim Sci. 1998;76(4):1216–31.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giavaresi G, Fini M, Cigada A, Chiesa R, Rondelli G, Rimondini L, et al. Mechanical and histomorphometric evaluations of titanium implants with different surface treatments inserted in sheep cortical bone. Biomaterials. 2003;24(9):1583–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Choi JY, Jung UW, Lee IS, Kim CS, Lee YK, Choi SH. Resolution of surgically created three-wall intrabony defects in implants using three different biomaterials: an in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(3):343–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Resolution of bone defects of varying dimension and configuration in the marginal portion of the peri-implant bone. J Clin Periodontol. 2004;31(4):309–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jung U-W, Moon H-I, Kim CS, Lee YK, Kim C-K, Choi S-H. Evaluation of different grafting materials in three-wall intra-bony defects around dental implants in beagle dogs. Curr Appl Phys. 2005;5(5):507–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim C-S, Choi S-H, Chai J-K, Cho K-S, Moon I-S, Wikesjö UM, et al. Periodontal repair in surgically created intrabony defects in dogs: influence of the number of bone walls on healing response. J Periodontol. 2004;75(2):229–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lang NP, Lindhe J. De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14(3):251–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Park JW, Kim HK, Kim YJ, An CH, Hanawa T. Enhanced osteoconductivity of micro-structured titanium implants (XiVE S CELLplus) by addition of surface calcium chemistry: a histomorphometric study in the rabbit femur. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(7):684–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Davies JE. Understanding peri-implant endosseous healing. J Dent Educ. 2003;67(8):932–49.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Davies JE. Bone bonding at natural and biomaterial surfaces. Biomaterials. 2007;28(34):5058–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Colon G, Ward BC, Webster TJ. Increased osteoblast and decreased Staphylococcus epidermidis functions on nanophase ZnO and TiO2. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2006;78(3):595–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Webster TJ, Ejiofor JU. Increased osteoblast adhesion on nanophase metals: Ti, Ti6Al4V, and CoCrMo. Biomaterials. 2004;25(19):4731–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Webster TJ, Schadler LS, Siegel RW, Bizios R. Mechanisms of enhanced osteoblast adhesion on nanophase alumina involve vitronectin. Tissue Eng. 2001;7(3):291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yao C, Perla V, McKenzie JL, Slamovich EB, Webster TJ. Anodized Ti and Ti 6 Al 4V possessing nanometer surface features enhances osteoblast adhesion. J Biomed Nanotechnol. 2005;1(1):68–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sista S, Wen C, Hodgson PD, Pande G. The influence of surface energy of titanium-zirconium alloy on osteoblast cell functions in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2011;1(97A):27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bornstein MM, Valderrama P, Jones AA, Wilson TG, Seibl R, Cochran DL. Bone apposition around two different sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implant surfaces: a histomorphometric study in canine mandibles. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(3):233–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajay Sharma
    • 1
  • A. James McQuillan
    • 2
  • Yo Shibata
    • 3
  • Lavanya A. Sharma
    • 4
  • John Neil Waddell
    • 1
  • Warwick John Duncan
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Dentistry, Sir John Walsh Research InstituteUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.Division of Biomaterials and Engineering, Department of Conservative DentistryShowa University School of DentistryTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Otago School of Medical SciencesUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations