Effect of bioceramic powder abrasion on different implant surfaces

Eman Abuhajar; Nesreen A Salim; Julian D Satterthwaite; Nick Silikas; Lamyia M Anweigi

doi:10.1111/jopr.13857

Effect of bioceramic powder abrasion on different implant surfaces

J Prosthodont. 2024 Apr 9. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13857. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Eman Abuhajar¹, Nesreen A Salim², Julian D Satterthwaite³, Nick Silikas⁴, Lamyia M Anweigi⁵

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Oral Surgery, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya.
² Prosthodontic Department, School of Dentistry, The University of Jordan, Consultant in Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics, The University of Jordan Hospital, Amman, Jordan.
³ Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
⁴ School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
⁵ College of Dental Medicine, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.

PMID: 38594924
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13857

Abstract

Purpose: Bioceramic coatings have been shown to promote bone repair, which aids in the early integration of implants. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of air abrasion with a bioceramic abrasive on the surface characteristics of different implant materials and surfaces. The dissolution of the applied treatment from the surfaces over 3 weeks was also assessed.

Materials and methods: Discs of three alloys used for dental implants were studied and compared: two types of commercially pure titanium (CpTi)/ (CpTi SLActive) and titanium-zirconia (TiZr). The tested surfaces were: CpTi control (CpC), sandblasted (SB), sandblasted and acid-etched (SBE), and CpTi SLActive®, (TiZr) Roxolid®. Three discs from each group underwent air abrasion with apatite bioceramic powders, 95% hydroxyapatite (HA)/5% calcium oxide (CaO), and 90% hydroxyapatite (HA)/10% calcium oxide (CaO). The treated discs were surface characterized by optical profilometry to obtain surface roughness, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) to compare element weight percentages of titanium, calcium, and phosphate. Dissolution was assessed using inductively coupled plasma optic emission spectrometry (ICP-OES).

Results: Bioceramic powders were deposited on all tested surfaces leading to changes in surface characteristics. The only statistically significant differences between the material groups for surface roughness were found with 95% HA/5% CaO powder in the Sp and Rp parameters (p = 0.03 and 0.04, respectively). There were no significant differences in the Ca and P wt% between all groups and powders 95% HA/5% CaO and 90% HA/10% CaO (p = 0.14, 0.18, and p = 0.15, 0.12, respectively). A non-uniform dispersion of the treatment on the surface layer was visible on all treated surfaces. The bioceramic powder continued to dissolute from the tested surfaces for 3 weeks.

Conclusion: Bioceramic abrasion modifies implant surface characteristics, although the change in surface characteristics resulting from such treatment was not influenced by the implant material or surface treatment. Air abrasion with hydroxyapatite and calcium oxide bioceramics leaves powder deposits on the treated implant surfaces that could potentially influence the healing of implants affected by peri-implantitis.

Keywords: air abrasion; bioceramic; calcium oxide; dental implants; hydroxyapatite; peri‐implantitis; surface treatment.