Biomedical Engineering Letters

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 249–257 | Cite as

Surface morphology characterization of laser-induced titanium implants: lesson to enhance osseointegration process

  • Javad Tavakoli
  • Mohammad E. Khosroshahi
Original Article


The surface properties of implant are responsible to provide mechanical stability by creating an intimate bond between the bone and implant; hence, play a major role on osseointegration process. The current study was aimed to measure surface characteristics of titanium modified by a pulsed Nd:YAG laser. The results of this study revealed an optimum density of laser energy (140 Jcm−2), at which improvement of osteointegration process was seen. Significant differences were found between arithmetical mean height (Ra), root mean square deviation (Rq) and texture orientation, all were lower for 140 Jcm−2 samples compared to untreated one. Also it was identified that the surface segments were more uniformly distributed with a more Gaussian distribution for treated samples at 140 Jcm−2. The distribution of texture orientation at high laser density (250 and 300 Jcm−2) were approximately similar to untreated sample. The skewness index that indicates how peaks and valleys are distributed throughout the surface showed a positive value for laser treated samples, compared to untreated one. The surface characterization revealed that Kurtosis index, which tells us how high or flat the surface profile is, for treated sample at 140 Jcm−2 was marginally close to 3 indicating flat peaks and valleys in the surface profile.


Osseointegration Surface characteristic Surface roughness Laser surface treatment Titanium alloy 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

It is declared that no human or animal has been used at any stage during this experiment.


  1. 1.
    Puleo DA, Nanci A. Understanding and controlling the bone–implant interface. Biomaterials. 1999;20(23):2311–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu X, Zhang Y, Li S, Wang Y, Sun T, Li Z, et al. Study of a new bone-targeting titanium implant–bone interface. Int J Nanomed. 2016;11:6307–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reviakine I, Jung F, Braune S, Brash JL, Latour R, Gorbet M, et al. Stirred, shaken, or stagnant: what goes on at the blood–biomaterial interface. Blood Rev. 2017;31(1):11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang J, Zhou Y, Wei F, Xiao Y. Blood clot formed on rough titanium surface induces early cell recruitment. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2016;27(8):1031–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neuss S, Schneider RK, Tietze L, Knuchel R, Jahnen-Dechent W. Secretion of fibrinolytic enzymes facilitates human mesenchymal stem cell invasion into fibrin clots. Cells Tissues Organs. 2010;191(1):36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang Z-S, Feng Z-H, Wu G-F, Bai S-Z, Dong Y, Chen F-M, et al. The use of platelet-rich fibrin combined with periodontal ligament and jaw bone mesenchymal stem cell sheets for periodontal tissue engineering. Sci Rep. 2016;6:28126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davies JE. Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11(5):391–401.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davies JE. Bone bonding at natural and biomaterial surfaces. Biomaterials. 2007;28(34):5058–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larsson Wexell C, Shah FA, Ericson L, Matic A, Palmquist A, Thomsen P. Electropolished titanium implants with a mirror-like surface support osseointegration and bone remodelling. Adv Mater Sci Eng. 2016;2016:1750105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ting M, Jefferies SR, Xia W, Engqvist H, Suzuki JB. Classification and effects of implant surface modification on the bone: human cell-based in vitro studies. J Oral Implantol. 2017;43(1):58–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Oirschot BA, Eman RM, Habibovic P, Leeuwenburgh SC, Tahmasebi Z, Weinans H, et al. Osteophilic properties of bone implant surface modifications in a cassette model on a decorticated goat spinal transverse process. Acta Biomater. 2016;37:195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hotchkiss KM, Reddy GB, Hyzy SL, Schwartz Z, Boyan BD, Olivares-Navarrete R. Titanium surface characteristics, including topography and wettability, alter macrophage activation. Acta Biomater. 2016;31:425–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen J, Rungsiyakull C, Li W, Chen Y, Swain M, Li Q. Multiscale design of surface morphological gradient for osseointegration. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013;20(Supplement C):387–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gittens RA, Olivares-Navarrete R, Schwartz Z, Boyan BD. Implant osseointegration and the role of microroughness and nanostructures: lessons for spine implants. Acta Biomater. 2014;10(8):3363–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khosroshahi M, Valanezhad A, Tavakoli J. Evaluation of mid-IR laser radiation effect on 316L stainless steel corrosion resistance in physiological saline. Amir Kabir. 2004;15(58-B):107–15.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khosroshahi M, Mahmoodi M, Tavakoli J, Tahriri M. Effect of Nd: yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser radiation on Ti6Al4V alloy properties for biomedical applications. J Laser Appl. 2008;20(4):209–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khosroshahi ME, Pour FA, Hadavi M, Mahmoodi M. In situ monitoring the pulse CO2 laser interaction with 316-L stainless steel using acoustical signals and plasma analysis. Appl Surf Sci. 2010;256(24):7421–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bartolomeu F, Sampaio M, Carvalho O, Pinto E, Alves N, Gomes JR, et al. Tribological behavior of Ti6Al4V cellular structures produced by selective laser melting. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017;69(Supplement C):128–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marin E, Fusi S, Pressacco M, Paussa L, Fedrizzi L. Characterization of cellular solids in Ti6Al4V for orthopaedic implant applications: trabecular titanium. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2010;3(5):373–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khosroshahi ME, Mahmoodi M, Tavakoli J. Characterization of Ti6Al4V implant surface treated by Nd:YAG laser and emery paper for orthopaedic applications. Appl Surf Sci. 2007;253(21):8772–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tavakoli J, Khosroshahi M, Mahmoodi M. Characterization of Nd:YAG laser radiation effects on Ti6A14V physico-chemical properties: an in vivo study. Int J Eng Trans B. 2007;20(1):1.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khosroshahi ME, Tavakoli J, Mahmoodi M. Analysis of bioadhesivity of osteoblast cells on titanium alloy surface modified by Nd:YAG laser. J Adhes. 2007;83(2):151–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karazisis D, Petronis S, Agheli H, Emanuelsson L, Norlindh B, Johansson A, et al. The influence of controlled surface nanotopography on the early biological events of osseointegration. Acta Biomater. 2017;53:559–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bose S, Tarafder S, Bandyopadhyay A. Effect of chemistry on osteogenesis and angiogenesis towards bone tissue engineering using 3D printed scaffolds. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(1):261–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coelho PG, Granato R, Marin C, Teixeira HS, Suzuki M, Valverde GB, et al. The effect of different implant macrogeometries and surface treatment in early biomechanical fixation: an experimental study in dogs. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011;4(8):1974–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hamlet SM, Ivanovski S. Inflammatory cytokine response to titanium surface chemistry and topography. In: The immune response to implanted materials and devices. Springer; 2017. p. 151–67.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coelho PG, Gil LF, Neiva R, Jimbo R, Tovar N, Lilin T, et al. Microrobotized blasting improves the bone-to-textured implant response. A preclinical in vivo biomechanical study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016;56(Supplement C):175–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Su Y, Komasa S, Li P, Nishizaki M, Chen L, Terada C, et al. Synergistic effect of nanotopography and bioactive ions on peri-implant bone response. Int J Nanomed. 2017;12:925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Queiroz TP, de Molon RS, Souza FÁ, Margonar R, Thomazini AHA, Guastaldi AC, et al. In vivo evaluation of cp Ti implants with modified surfaces by laser beam with and without hydroxyapatite chemical deposition and without and with thermal treatment: topographic characterization and histomorphometric analysis in rabbits. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(2):685–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mangano FG, Pires JT, Shibli JA, Mijiritsky E, Iezzi G, Piattelli A, et al. Early bone response to dual acid-etched and machined dental implants placed in the posterior maxilla: a histologic and histomorphometric human study. Implant dentistry. 2017;26(1):24–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Camargo WA, Takemoto S, Hoekstra JW, Leeuwenburgh SC, Jansen JA, van den Beucken JJ, et al. Effect of surface alkali-based treatment of titanium implants on ability to promote in vitro mineralization and in vivo bone formation. Acta Biomater. 2017;57:511–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wirth J, Tahriri M, Khoshroo K, Rasoulianboroujeni M, Dentino AR, Tayebi L. Surface modification of dental implants. In: Biomaterials for oral and dental tissue engineering. Elsevier; 2017. pp. 85–96.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mangano F, Mangano C, Piattelli A, Iezzi G. Histological evidence of the osseointegration of fractured direct metal laser sintering implants retrieved after 5 years of function. BioMed Res Int. 2017;2017:9732136.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moore B, Asadi E, Lewis G. Deposition methods for microstructured and nanostructured coatings on metallic bone implants: a review. Adv Mater Sci Eng. 2017;2017:5812907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Palmquist A, Shah FA, Emanuelsson L, Omar O, Suska F. A technique for evaluating bone ingrowth into 3D printed, porous Ti6Al4V implants accurately using X-ray micro-computed tomography and histomorphometry. Micron. 2017;94:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wieland M, Textor M, Spencer ND, Brunette DM. Wavelength-dependent roughness: a quantitative approach to characterizing the topography of rough titanium surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16(2):163–81.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Liu J, Fan X, Sun C, Zhu W. Oxidation of the titanium (0001) surface: diffusion processes of oxygen from DFT. RSC Adv. 2016;6(75):71311–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Junkar I, Kulkarni M, Drašler B, Rugelj N, Mazare A, Flašker A, et al. Influence of various sterilization procedures on TiO2 nanotubes used for biomedical devices. Bioelectrochemistry. 2016;109:79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Medical and Biological Engineering and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biomechanics and Implants Research Group, The Medical Device Research Institute, College of Science and EngineeringFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.MIS-Electronics, Nanobiophotonics and Biomedical Research LabRichmond HillCanada

Personalised recommendations