Structural influence from calcium phosphate coatings and its possible effect on enhanced bone integration

References

• Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindström J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Acta Orthop Scand 1981; 52: 155–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper LF. A role for surface topography in creating and maintaining bone at titanium endosseous implants. J Prosth Dentistry 2000; 84: 522–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shalabi MM, Gortemaker A, Van't Hof MA, Jansen JA, Creugers NH. Implant surface roughness and bone healing: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2006; 85: 496–500
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Guéhennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 844–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sennerby L, Dasmah A, Larsson B, Iverhed M. Bone tissue responses to surface-modified zirconia implants: a histomorphometric and removal torque study in the rabbit. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005; 7(Suppl 1)S13–20
   Google Scholar
• Gahlert M, Gudehus T, Eichhorn S, Steinhauser E, Kniha H, Erhardt W. Biomechanical and histomorphometric comparison between zirconia implants with varying surface textures and a titanium implant in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18: 662–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 1. Review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17: 536–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellingsen JE, Johansson CB, Wennerberg A, Holmén A. Improved retention and bone to implant contact with fluoride-modified titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 659–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buser D, Broggini N, Wieland M, Schenk RK, Denzer AJ, Cochran DL, et al. Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface. J Dent Res 2004; 83: 529–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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: 319–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wennerberg, A, Albrektsson, T. On implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; Accepted.
   Google Scholar
• Wong M, Eulenberger J, Schenk R, Hunziker E. Effect of surface topology on the osseointegration of implant materials in trabecular bone. J Biomed Mater Res 1995; 29: 1567–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gotfredsen K, Wennerberg A, Johansson C, Skovgaard LT, Hjørting-Hansen E. Anchorage of TiO2-blasted, HA-coated, and machined implants: an experimental study with rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res 1995; 29: 1223–31
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gottlander M, Johansson CB, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Radin S, Ducheyne P. Bone tissue reactions to an electrophoretically applied calcium phosphate coating. Biomaterials 1997; 18: 551–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vercaigne S, Wolke JG, Naert I, Jansen JA. Bone healing capacity of titanium plasma-sprayed and hydroxylapatite-coated oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998; 9: 261–71
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li J. Behaviour of titanium and titania-based ceramics in vitro and in vivo. Biomaterials 1993; 14: 229–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeo IS, Han JS, Yang JH. Biomechanical and histomorphometric study of dental implants with different surface characteristics. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomat 2008; 87: 303–11
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hayakawa T, Yoshinari M, Kiba H, Yamamoto H, Nemoto K, Jansen JA. Trabecular bone response to surface roughened and calcium phosphate (Ca-P) coated titanium implants. Biomaterials 2002; 23: 1025–31
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vercaigne S, Wolke JG, Naert I, Jansen JA. A histological evaluation of TiO2-gritblasted and Ca-P magnetron sputter coated implants placed into the trabecular bone of the goat: Part 2. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 314–24
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hayakawa T, Yoshinari M, Nemoto K, Wolke JG, Jansen JA. Effect of surface roughness and calcium phosphate coating on the implant/bone response. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 296–304
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Novaes AB, Jr, Souza SL, de Oliveira PT, Souza AM. Histomorphometric analysis of the bone-implant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatments placed side by side in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 377–83
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee IS, Kim DH, Kim HE, Jung YC, Han CH. Biological performance of calcium phosphate films formed on commercially pure Ti by electron-beam evaporation. Biomaterials 2002; 23: 609–15
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Borsari V, Fini M, Giavaresi G, Rimondini L, Consolo U, Chiusoli L, et al. Osteointegration of titanium and hydroxyapatite rough surfaces in healthy and compromised cortical and trabecular bone: in vivo comparative study on young, aged, and estrogen-deficient sheep. J Orthop Res 2007; 25: 1250–60
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Savarino L, Fini M, Ciapetti G, Cenni E, Granchi D, Baldini N, et al. Biologic effects of surface roughness and fluorhydroxyapatite coating on osteointegration in external fixation systems: an in vivo experimental study. J Biomed Mater Res A 2003; 66: 652–61
   Google Scholar
• Aebli N, Krebs J, Stich H, Schawalder P, Walton M, Schwenke D, et al. In vivo comparison of the osseointegration of vacuum plasma sprayed titanium- and hydroxyapatite-coated implants. J Biomed Mater Res A 2003; 66: 356–63
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Le Guehennec L, Goyenvalle E, Lopez-Heredia M-A, Weiss P, Amouriq Y, Layrolle P. Histomorphometric analysis of the osseointegration of four different implant surfaces in the femoral epiphyses of rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 1103–10
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taba Júnior M, Novaes AB, Jr, Souza SL, Grisi MF, Palioto DB, Pardini LC. Radiographic evaluation of dental implants with different surface treatments: an experimental study in dogs. Implant Dent 2003; 12: 252–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Svehla M, Morberg P, Bruce W, Zicat B, Walsh WR. The effect of substrate roughness and hydroxyapatite coating thickness on implant shear strength. J Arthroplast 2002; 17: 304–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fini M, Savarino L, Nicoli Aldini N, Martini L, Giavaresi G, Rizzi G, et al. Biomechanical and histomorphometric investigations on two morphologically differing titanium surfaces with and without fluorohydroxyapatite coating: an experimental study in sheep tibiae. Biomaterials 2003; 24: 3183–92
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goené R, Testori T, Trisi P. Influence of a nanometer-scale surface enhancement on de novo bone formation on titanium implants: a histomorphometric study in human maxillae. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2007; 27: 211–19
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jeffcoat MK, McGlumphy EA, Reddy MS, Geurs NC, Proskin HP. A comparison of hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated threaded, HA-coated cylindric, and titanium-threaded endosseous dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18: 406–10
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mendes VC, Moineddin R, Davies JE. The effect of discrete calcium phosphate nanocrystals on bone-bonding to titanium surfaces. Biomaterials 2007; 28: 4748–55
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meirelles L, Arvidsson A, Andersson M, Kjellin P, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Nano hydroxyapatite structures influence early bone formation. J Biomed Mater Res A 2008; 87: 299–307
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meirelles L, Melin L, Peltola T, Kjellin P, Kangasniemi I, Currie F, et al. Effect of hydroxyapatite and titania nanostructures on early in vivo bone response. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008; 10: 245–54
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meirelles L, Currie F, Jacobsson M, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. The effect of chemical and nano topographical modifications on early stage of osseointegration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23: 641–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li Y, Lee IS, Cui FZ, Choi SH. The biocompatibility of nanostructured calcium phosphate coated on micro-arc oxidized titanium. Biomaterials 2008; 29: 2025–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schliephake H, Aref A, Scharnweber D, Rössler S, Sewing A. Effect of modifications of dual acid-etched implant surfaces on periimplant bone formation. Part II: calcium phosphate coatings. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 38–44
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sawase T, Jimbo R, Wennerberg A, Suketa N, Tanaka Y, Atsuta M. A novel characteristic of porous titanium oxide implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 2007; 18: 680–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jimbo, R, Ono, D, Hirakawa, Y, Odatsu, T, Tanaka, T, Sawase, T. Chemically accelerated photo-induced hydrophilicity promotes osseointegration: an animal study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009. In press.
   Google Scholar
• Albrektsson T, Brånemark P-I, Hansson H-A, Kasemo B, Larsson K, Lundstöm I, et al. The interface zone of inorganic implants in vivo: titanium implants in bone. Biomed Engin 1983; 11: 1–27
   Google Scholar
• Gottlander M, Johansson CB, Albrektsson T. Short and long-term studies with a plasma-sprayed calcium phosphate-coated implant. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997; 8: 345–51
   PubMedGoogle Scholar