Histomorphometric and histologic evaluation of titanium–zirconium (aTiZr) implants with anodized surfaces
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.
KeywordsAnodize Surface Methyl Violet TiZr Calcium Acetate Bone Graft Material
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 29.Davies JE. Understanding peri-implant endosseous healing. J Dent Educ. 2003;67(8):932–49.Google Scholar