Surface Coatings of Dental Implants: A Review

Replacement of missing teeth is possible using biocompatible devices such as endosseous implants. This study aims to analyze and recognize the best characteristics of different implant surfaces that ensure good peri-implant tissue healing and thus clinical success over time. The present review was performed on the recent literature concerning endosseous implants made of titanium, a material most frequently used because of its mechanical, physical, and chemical characteristics. Thanks to its low bioactivity, titanium exhibits slow osseointegration. Implant surfaces are treated so that cells do not reject the surface as a foreign material and accept it as fully biocompatible. Analysis of different types of implant surface coatings was performed in order to identify ideal surfaces that improve osseointegration, epithelial attachment to the implant site, and overall peri-implant health. This study shows that the implant surface, with different adhesion, proliferation, and spreading capabilities of osteoblastic and epithelial cells, influences the cells involved in anchorage. Implant surfaces must have antibacterial capabilities to prevent peri-implant disease. Research still needs to improve implant material to minimize clinical failure.

Effect of Adhesive Resin Application on the Durability of Adhesion to CAD/CAM Glass-Ceramics after either Hydrofluoric Acid Etching or Self-etch Primer Application

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of two surface conditioning methods, namely conventional hydrofluoric acid vs self-etching primer, and the application of adhesive on the bond strength of resin cement to CAD/CAM glass-ceramics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Blocks (N = 96) (12 x 10 x 2.5 mm) were manufactured, 24 for each tested ceramic type: lithium silicate ceramic (LS), polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PIC), leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic (FD), and lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic (LD). For bond strength testing, 64 blocks were randomly divided into 16 groups (4 blocks per group) according to the following factors: ceramic: 4 levels; etching: 2 levels (HFS: hydrofluoric acid + silane or Monobond Etch & Prime [MEP]); and adhesive application: 2 levels, with (signified as A) and without. Then for each group, 15 resin cement cylinders (AllCem Dual, FGM) were built up. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling (10,000 cycles) and to shear bonding strength testing (SBS) (100 kgf, 0.5 mm/min). Mean shear stresses (MPa) were statistically analyzed by three-way ANOVA, Tukey's test, and Weibull analysis.

RESULTS

The mean bond strength of group PIC-HFS-A (28.45 ± 7.6 MPa) was significantly higher than that of groups LS-HFS-A (12.11 ± 2.7MPa) and FDHFSA (20.86 ± 2.0MPa). Group PIC-HFS bond strength (25.02 ± 6.5 MPa) was significantly higher only when compared to group LS-HFS (15.82 ± 4.4 MPa). The LS group presented lower SBS compared to all other groups. No significant differences were found between HFS and MEP surface treatments.

CONCLUSION

Surface treatment with MEP promotes adhesion similar to that of HFS. Additional application of adhesive after the surface treatments did not improve the bond strength.