Prevalence of Titanium Hypersensitivity in Patients with Titanium Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Osteoblast cell behavior on polyetheretherketone dental implant surfaces treated with different grit size aluminum oxide particles: An in vitro analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The hydrophobic and bioinert nature of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants needs to be addressed for successful osseointegration.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the osteoblast cell behavior on PEEK implant surfaces treated with airborne-particle abrasion using different grit size aluminum oxide (Al2O3) particles.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Disk-shaped specimens (n=96) were prepared from medical grade PEEK rods and were distributed into 4 groups (n=24) of untreated PEEK (PEEK 0), airborne-particle abrasion using 50-μm Al2O3 particles (PEEK 50), airborne-particle abrasion using 110-μm Al2O3 particles (PEEK 110), and airborne-particle abrasion using 150-μm Al2O3 particles (PEEK 150). The surface characteristics were assessed using water contact angle (WCA) measurements and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). MG-63 osteoblast cells were cultured, and the biocompatibility of PEEK was assessed using a CellTiter-blue cell viability assay and florescence staining at day 1, 3, and 7. The specimens were stained with Alizarin red to assess the osteoblast cell differentiation on day 10 and 14. The Levene test was used to test the homogeneity of variances. One-way and Welch ANOVA with post hoc corrections were used to assess the overall statistical significance of differences among the groups (α=.05).

RESULTS

The lowest mean WCA was demonstrated in PEEK 150 (49.25 ±5.51) and the highest in PEEK 0 (89.14 ±4.24) (P<.001). SEM images of PEEK 150 illustrated a more complex structure with a large area of globular outcroppings throughout the surface. PEEK 150 showed the highest cell metabolic activity at each time point with florescence staining showing a substantial cell confluence at day 3 and 7. Although PEEK 150 did not show a significant increase in cell proliferation, the number of cells attached was significantly higher than other groups (P<.05). PEEK 110 and 150 also showed a substantial increase in the extent of mineralization.

CONCLUSIONS

Airborne-particle abrasion using moderate Al2O3 grit size (110- or 150-μm) improved the hydrophilicity and osteoblast cell behavior on PEEK implants.

Evaluation of Failure in Single-Piece Implant Systems: A One-Year Follow-Up Study

Objective

This study's goal was to assess the failure rate and peri-implant complications of single-piece implant systems over the course of a one-year follow-up.

Materials and Methods

Patient records were examined retrospectively. 150 single-piece dental implants were analyzed. Clinical results, implant features, and demographic information were gathered. Implant failure, which is characterized as the total loss of osseointegration, served as the key outcome indicator. Patient satisfaction and peri-implant problems were secondary outcomes. Data analysis employed descriptive statistics.

Results

During the one-year follow-up period, the failure rate for single-piece implant systems was 6.7%. The two main factors leading to implant failure were found to be poor osseointegration (60%) and biomechanical overload (40%). 20% of the cases had peri-implant problems, such as peri-implantitis. 85% of the panelists felt that single-piece implants had satisfied their patients.

Conclusion

A 6.7% failure rate in single-piece implant systems was seen in this one-year follow-up investigation. The major causes of implant failure were found to be poor osseointegration and biomechanical loading. In 20% of the cases, peri-implant problems such as peri-implantitis, were noted. There was great patient satisfaction. These results highlight the significance of regulating occlusal forces, optimizing osseointegration, and applying preventive measures to ensure the long-term viability of single-piece implant systems.

Are Allergy-Induced Implant Failures Actually Hypersensitivity Reactions to Titanium? A Literature Review

PURPOSE

This literature review was performed to assess whether implant failures are associated with titanium allergy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search of the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases up to April 2021 was conducted, and the obtained articles were independently assessed by two reviewers. Articles describing cases of implant failure in which the cause of implant failure was only identified as allergy were included.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included. Eight studies identified Ti allergy by clinical examinations, of which four used patch tests, three used the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT)/memory lymphocyte immunostimulation assay (MELISA), and one used both tests. Nine studies reported cases of titanium hypersensitivity in combination with other systemic allergy-related disorders, with eight cases also showing positive results for Ni, Hg, Cr, and Co hypersensitivity. Ten papers reported the improvement of symptoms after the removal of the Ti implants and their replacement with zirconia implants, and two of these papers showed good results.

CONCLUSION

Cases of probable titanium allergy included those with true titanium allergies and those with a potentially different cause. However, the differentiation of these cases is difficult. Since no definitive method has been established for diagnosing titanium allergy, a comprehensive diagnosis based on the clinical course and clinical examination using a patch test/LTT/MELISA is necessary. Implant treatment should be performed with caution in patients with any preoperative allergies.

Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone

Polymers, in general, and Poly (Ether-Ether-Ketone) (PEEK) have emerged as potential alternatives to conventional osseous implant biomaterials. Due to its distinct advantages over metallic implants, PEEK has been gaining increasing attention as a prime candidate for orthopaedic and dental implants. However, PEEK has a highly hydrophobic and bioinert surface that attenuates the differentiation and proliferation of osteoblasts and leads to implant failure. Several improvements have been made to the osseointegration potential of PEEK, which can be classified into three main categories: (1) surface functionalization with bioactive agents by physical or chemical means; (2) incorporation of bioactive materials either as surface coatings or as composites; and (3) construction of three-dimensionally porous structures on its surfaces. The physical treatments, such as plasma treatments of various elements, accelerated neutron beams, or conventional techniques like sandblasting and laser or ultraviolet radiation, change the micro-geometry of the implant surface. The chemical treatments change the surface composition of PEEK and should be titrated at the time of exposure. The implant surface can be incorporated with a bioactive material that should be selected following the desired use, loading condition, and antimicrobial load around the implant. For optimal results, a combination of the methods above is utilized to compensate for the limitations of individual methods. This review summarizes these methods and their combinations for optimizing the surface of PEEK for utilization as an implanted biomaterial.

Silica coated high performance oxide ceramics promote greater ossification than titanium implants: an in vivo study

BACKGROUND

This in vitro study investigated the osseointegration and implant integration of high performance oxide ceramics (HPOC) compared to titanium implants in rabbits.

METHODS

Histomorphometry was conducted around the distal, proximal, medial, and lateral aspects of the HPOC to quantify the amount of mature and immature ossification within the bone interface. Histomorphometry was conducted by a trained musculoskeletal pathologist. The region of interest (ROI) represented the percentage of surrounding area of the implant. The percentage of ROI covered by osteoid implant contact (OIC) and mature bone implant contact (BIC) were assessed. The surrounding presence of bone resorption, necrosis, and/or inflammation were quantitatively investigated.

RESULTS

All 34 rabbits survived the 6- and 12-week experimental period. All HPOC implants remained in situ. The mean weight difference from baseline was + 647.7 mg (P < 0.0001). The overall OIC of the ceramic group was greater at 6 weeks compared to the titanium implants (P = 0.003). The other endpoints of interest were similar between the two implants at all follow-up points. No difference was found in BIC at 6- and 12-weeks follow-up. No bone necrosis, resorption, or inflammation were observed.

CONCLUSION

HPOC implants demonstrated a greater osteoid implant contact at 6 weeks compared to the titanium implants, with no difference found at 12 weeks. The percentage of bone implant contact of HPOC implants was similar to that promoted by titanium implants.

Is Allergy to Titanium Bone Fixation Plates a Problem?

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with titanium fixation plates is the gold standard for maxillofacial fracture treatment. Titanium is considered a fully compatible material. However, reports of allergic reactions to titanium implants do occur. The aim of this work is to answer the question whether titanium devices used in the treatment of fractures in the craniofacial region can cause allergic reactions. The study comprised 50 subjects treated surgically for maxillofacial injuries with the use of titanium composite devices. Allergic tests were performed by the patch method. The control group consisted of 20 healthy people who did not have any titanium elements. There were no skin changes to titanium and its compounds in both the test and control groups. Only one patient had a positive skin test which showed an allergic reaction to silver nitrate. Titanium fixing elements, as well as titanium dental implants, according to our research, do not show allergic skin reactions.