The Role of Biomimetic Incubation of Sandblasted Titanium Implants in the Process of Osseointegration: An Experimental Study in Dogs

Nigmon L. Khabilov, PhD, ScD; Timur V. Melkumyan, PhD, ScD, Tatyana O. Mun; Farkhod K. Usmonov; Iskander M. Baybekov, PhD, ScD

Tashkent State Dental Institute; Tashkent, Uzbekistan

*Corresponding author: Timur V. Melkumyan*, PhD, ScD. Tashkent State Dental Institute; Tashkent, Uzbekistan. E-mail:

Published: March 25, 2015. DOI: 10.21103/Article5(1)_D2


The aim of the present study was to examine the surface characteristics and values of removal torque of an implant surface subjected to sandblasting with 125µm Al2O3 particles with a following immersion in biomimetic fluid and to compare that surface with a machined implant surface.

Study protocol: Forty-eight conical implants were initially made of second-grade titanium alloy. The diameter of implants was 4mm at the head and 2.6 at the apex, all implants were of 8 mm length and of large variable thread design. Half of them were subjected to sand blasting and immersion in biomimetic fluid at 37 ⁰C for four weeks with daily replenishment of solution until the moment of placement; another 24 implants were left with untreated machined surface. Three-dimensional roughness values were obtained with the help of confocal laser scanning microscope.

Forty-eight implants were implanted in 12 dogs. Twenty-four implants were retrieved after a 6-week healing period following installation, and the remaining 24 were removed upon the completion of 16 weeks, using a torque calibrator ((BTG150CN-S TOHNICHI) with a 20 cN·m - 150 cN·m scale of force registration was applied for the measurements of the removal torque.

Results: The mean 3-dimensional roughness value of biomimetically treated implant surfaces was 1.34±0.24µm and the mean roughness value measured for the machined surfaces was 0.33±0.04µm (P<0.05). As to the average parameters of maximum peak-trough distance, these were equal to 2.85 for machined and 24.25 for incubated sandblasted implants. Machined implants demonstrated 49.5±10.3 removal torque values after the 6-week healing period. But for the immersed sandblasted implants the same parameter was equal to 72.7±15.98 Ncm. During a 16-week recovery period, these values increased up to 77.5±15.16 Ncm and 89.7±11.83 Ncm for machined and biomimetically treated sandblasted implants, respectively, P<0.05.

Conclusion: The present study demonstrated the rapid recovery time for biomimetically incubated sandblasted dental implants in comparison to machined surface implants based on findings of early (6 weeks healing period) removal tests. Although there was established only a 13.4% difference in values of removal torque after a 16-week healing period (instead of 32% after 6 weeks of recovery) between two groups of implants which could be associated with delayed bone integration. 

dental implants; surface treatment; biomimetic fluid; roughness; removal torque.
  1. Chandra R, Bains R, Loomba K, Pal US, Ram H, Bains VK. Endosseous dental implant vis-à-vis conservative management: Is it a dilemma? Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2010; 1(1):26–9.
  2.  Abraham CM. A brief historical perspective on dental implants, their surface coatings and treatments. Open Dent J 2014; 8:50–5.
  3. Löberg J, Mattisson I,  Hansson S,  Ahlberg E.  Characterisation of titanium dental implants I: Critical assessment of surface roughness parameters. Open Biomat J 2010; (2):18-35.
  4. 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(5):536-43.
  5. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 2-- review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17(5):544-64.
  6. Kokubo T, Takadama H. How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity? Biomaterials 2006; 27(15):2907-15.
  7. Loty C, Sautier JM, Boulekbache H, Kokubo T, Kim HM, Forest N. In vitro bone formation on a bonelike apatite layer prepared by a biomimetic process on a bioactive glass-ceramic. J Biomed Mater Res 2000; 49(4):423–34.
  8. Kim HW, Kim HE, Salih, V. Stimulation of osteoblast responses to biomimetic nanocomposites of gelatin—hydroxyapatite for tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials 2005; 26(25):5221–30.
  9. Liu YL, de Groot, K, Hunziker EB. Biomimetic mineral coatings in dental and orthopaedic implantology. Front Mater Sci (China) 2009; 3:154–62.
  10. Vidigal GM Jr, Groisman M, de Sena LA, Soares Gde A. Surface characterization of dental implants coated with hydroxyapatite by plasma spray and biomimetic process. Implant Dent 2009; 18(4):353–61.
  11. Jonášová L, Müller FA, Helebrant A, Strnad J, Greil P. Biomimetic apatite formation on chemically treated titanium. Biomaterials 2004: 25(7-8):1187- 94.
  12.    Klokkevold PR, Johnson P, Dadgostari S, Caputo A, Davies JE, Nishimura RD. Early endosseous integration enhanced by dual acid etching of titamium: a torque removal study in the rabbit. Clin Oral Impl Res 2001; 12(4):350-7.
  13. Hohlt WF. Ask us. How to remove an osseointegrated palatal implant. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126(3):19A.
  14. Liu XY, Chu PK, Ding CX. Surface modification of titanium, titanium alloys, and related materials for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Eng R-Rep 2004; 47(3-4):49-121.
  15. MacDonald DE, Rapuano BE, Deo N, Stranick M, Somasundaran P, Boskey AL Thermal and chemical modification of titanium-aluminum-vanadium implant materials: effects on surface properties, glycoprotein adsorption, and MG63 cell attachment. Biomaterials 2004; 25(16):3135-46.
  16. Massaro C, Rotolo P, de Riccardis F, Milella E, Napoli A, Wieland M, et al. Comparative investigation of the surface properties of comercial titanium dental implants. Part I: chemical composition. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2002; 13(6):536-48.
  17. Cordioli G, Majzoub Z, Piatelli A, Scarano A. Removal torque and histomorphometric investigation of 4 different titanium surfaces: An experimental study in the rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15(5):668-74.
  18. Park JY, Davies JE. Red blood cell and platelet interactions with titanium implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11(6):530–9. 
  19. Masaki C, Schneider GB, Zaharias R, Seabold D, Stanford C. Effects of implant surface microtopography on osteoblast gene expression. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16(6):650-6.
  20. Tan KS, Qian L, Rosado R, Flood PM, Cooper LF. The role of titanium surface topography on J774A.1 macrophage inflammatory cytokines and nitric oxide production. Biomaterials 2006; 27(30):5170-7.
  21. Anselme K, Linez P, Bigerelle M, Le Maguer D, Le Maguer A, Hardouin P,  et al. The relative influence of the topography and chemistry of TiAl6V4 surfaces on osteoblastic cell behavior. Biomaterials 2000; 21(15):1567- 77.

The fully formatted PDF version is available.       

Download Article

Int J Biomed. 2015; 5(1):38-40. © 2015 International Medical Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved.