Coelho Paulo G, Gil Luiz F, Neiva Rodrigo, Jimbo Ryo, Tovar Nick, Lilin Thomas, Bonfante Estevam A
Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University, 433 1st Ave., Room 844, New York, NY 10010, USA; Director for Research, Department of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry, New York University College of Dentistry, 345E 24th Street, New York, NY 10010, USA; Affiliated Faculty, Department of Engineering, New York University Abu Dhabi, PO Box 129188, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Department of Dentistry, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, R. Eng. Agronômico Andrei Cristian Ferreira, s/n-Trindade, Florianópolis, SC 88040-900, Brazil.
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016 Mar;56:175-182. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.11.002. Epub 2015 Nov 24.
This study evaluated the effect of microrobotized blasting of titanium endosteal implants relative to their manually blasted counterparts. Two different implant systems were utilized presenting two different implant surfaces. Control surfaces (Manual) were fabricated by manually grit blasting the implant surfaces while experimental surfaces (Microblasted) were fabricated through a microrobotized system that provided a one pass grit blasting routine. Both surfaces were created with the same ~50µm average particle size alumina powder at ~310KPa. Surfaces were then etched with 37% HCl for 20min, washed, and packaged through standard industry procedures. The surfaces were characterized through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and optical interferometry, and were then placed in a beagle dog radius model remaining in vivo for 3 and 6 weeks. The implant removal torque was recorded and statistical analysis evaluated implant system and surface type torque levels as a function of time in vivo. Histologic sections were qualitatively evaluated for tissue response. Electron microscopy depicted textured surfaces for both manual and microblasted surfaces. Optical interferometry showed significantly higher Sa, Sq, values for the microblasted surface and no significant difference for Sds and Sdr values between surfaces. In vivo results depicted that statistically significant gains in biomechanical fixation were obtained for both implant systems tested at 6 weeks in vivo, while only one system presented significant biomechanical gain at 3 weeks. Histologic sections showed qualitative higher amounts of new bone forming around microblasted implants relative to the manually blasted group. Microrobotized blasting resulted in higher biomechanical fixation of endosteal dental implants and should be considered as an alternative for impant surface manufacturing.
本研究评估了微型机器人喷砂处理的钛骨内植入物相对于手动喷砂处理的植入物的效果。使用了两种不同的植入系统,呈现出两种不同的植入物表面。对照表面(手动)通过对植入物表面进行手动喷砂处理制成,而实验表面(微型喷砂)则通过微型机器人系统制成,该系统提供单次喷砂程序。两种表面均使用平均粒径约为50µm的氧化铝粉末,在约310KPa的压力下制成。然后用37%的盐酸对表面进行蚀刻20分钟,冲洗,并按照标准工业程序进行包装。通过扫描电子显微镜(SEM)和光学干涉测量对表面进行表征,然后将其置于比格犬桡骨模型中,在体内放置3周和6周。记录植入物的去除扭矩,并通过统计分析评估植入系统和表面类型的扭矩水平随体内时间的变化。对组织学切片进行定性评估以观察组织反应。电子显微镜显示手动和微型喷砂表面均有纹理。光学干涉测量显示微型喷砂表面的Sa、Sq值显著更高,而表面之间的Sds和Sdr值无显著差异。体内结果表明,在体内6周时,测试的两种植入系统在生物力学固定方面均取得了统计学上的显著提高,而只有一种系统在3周时呈现出显著的生物力学提高。组织学切片显示,相对于手动喷砂组,微型喷砂植入物周围定性地形成了更多的新骨。微型机器人喷砂导致骨内牙种植体的生物力学固定更高,应被视为种植体表面制造的一种替代方法。