De Lauretis Angela, Santacroce Marco, Ellingsen Jan Eirik, Lyngstadaas Ståle Petter, Linke Dirk, Haugen Håvard Jostein
Department of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, 0455 Oslo, Norway; Corticalis AS, Oslo Science Park, Gaustadalléen 21, 0349 Oslo, Norway.
Department of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, 0455 Oslo, Norway; Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Via Consolare Valeria, 1, 98125 Messina, Italy.
J Dent. 2025 Jul 30;162:106010. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106010.
Dental implants are susceptible to peri‑implant inflammation caused by bacterial biofilms, with surface properties playing a key role in bacterial adhesion and osseointegration. While mechanical debridement is essential for biofilm removal, consensus on the optimal tool remains limited. In this study, we evaluate the impact of a titanium, a chitosan and a nitinol brush on the surface properties of four titanium dental implant surfaces: OsseoSpeed®-like, SLActive®-like, machined, and polished.
Profilometry, contact angle measurements, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) were used to assess the surface properties and chemistry.
SEM and profilometry revealed that the titanium and nitinol brushes altered the morphology and topography of the rough OsseoSpeed®-like and SLActive®-like surfaces, while these effects were less pronounced on machined surfaces. Conversely, the chitosan brush caused minimal changes, but its bristles wore down quickly by physical abrasion, increasing surface carbon as detected by EDX and identified by XPS as organic material. Conversely, XPS confirmed that carbon contamination in samples treated with metal brushes was primarily environmental. The increased hydrophobicity observed across all groups was linked to carbon contamination. Polished surfaces remained unaffected by mechanical debridement.
The chitosan brush showed minimal surface alterations, but the rapid bristle wear left organic residues that increased hydrophobicity. The titanium and nitinol brushes caused more pronounced surface changes, while contributing to increased hydrophobicity through environmental carbon contamination during debridement.
Dental implant surface properties, including topography, morphology, wettability, and surface chemistry, play a critical role in bacterial adhesion and osseointegration. Selecting an optimal mechanical debridement instrument requires balancing the effective removal of biofilm with the impact on the implant surface properties.
牙种植体易受细菌生物膜引起的种植体周围炎症影响，表面特性在细菌黏附和骨结合中起关键作用。虽然机械清创对于生物膜清除至关重要，但对于最佳工具的共识仍然有限。在本研究中，我们评估了钛刷、壳聚糖刷和镍钛合金刷对四种钛牙种植体表面（类OsseoSpeed®、类SLActive®、机械加工和抛光表面）的表面特性的影响。
使用轮廓仪、接触角测量、扫描电子显微镜（SEM）、能量色散X射线光谱（EDX）和X射线光电子能谱（XPS）来评估表面特性和化学性质。
SEM和轮廓仪显示，钛刷和镍钛合金刷改变了粗糙的类OsseoSpeed®和类SLActive®表面的形态和形貌，而这些影响在机械加工表面上不太明显。相反，壳聚糖刷引起的变化最小，但其刷毛因物理磨损而迅速磨损，如EDX检测到并经XPS鉴定为有机材料的表面碳增加。相反，XPS证实，用金属刷处理的样品中的碳污染主要来自环境。所有组中观察到的疏水性增加与碳污染有关。抛光表面不受机械清创的影响。
壳聚糖刷表面变化最小，但刷毛快速磨损留下有机残留物，增加了疏水性。钛刷和镍钛合金刷引起更明显的表面变化，同时在清创过程中通过环境碳污染导致疏水性增加。
牙种植体表面特性，包括形貌、形态、润湿性和表面化学性质，在细菌黏附和骨结合中起关键作用。选择最佳的机械清创器械需要在有效清除生物膜与对种植体表面特性的影响之间取得平衡。
