Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation for Dental Implant Surface Treatment

Current technologies of plasma electrolytic oxidation (PEO) for modifying the surfaces of dental implants made of the Grade IV titan alloy provide predictable long-term results in implant dentistry.

The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of PEO technology comparing two types of surface modification of dental implants made of VT1-0 medical titanium alloy.

Materials and Methods. 50 IRIS dental implants (Scientific Production Company LICOSTOM, Russia), 10-mm long and 4 mm in diameter, were manufactured from the VT1-0 alloy. The implant surface was treated by two PEO methods: 1) in the aqueous solution of alkaline electrolyte without any additional modifiers (PEO-Ti); 2) in the aqueous solution of orthophosphoric acid-based electrolyte containing calcium carbonate (PEO-Ca). Implants made of VT1-0 alloy after milling and without additional treatment served as control samples. The implant surfaces were studied by electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry. Some of the implants were installed in sheep, samples were obtained at 2, 4, and 8 weeks and studied by microcomputer tomography.

Results. Regardless of the electrolyte composition, a highly developed porous surface was formed in the samples with PEO-modified surfaces. The surface of the PEO-Ti samples in a simple unmodified electrolyte was characterized by a large number of open pores with a wide range of size distribution from 200 nm to 3 µm. The pore size distribution was of a monomodal character, with a maximum near 0.23 µm. The PEO samples in the Ca-containing electrolyte had pores also in a wide range from ~80 nm to ~7 µm. The pore distribution, in contrast to PEO-Ti, was bimodal in nature, with the main maximum in the region of 1.05 µm and the concomitant maximum near 2.45 µm.

The obtained surfaces of both types (PEO with Ca and Ti) possessed high purity and optimal microroughness for osseointegration. Both types of PEO treatment (PEO with Ca and Ti) have demonstrated a similar osseointegrative potential, nevertheless, the surface of the PEO-Ca showed a better contact with the implant surface (49.8%) than PEO-Ti (42.4%) obviously due to the presence of calcium in its composition.

Conclusion. The PEO-formed implant surfaces demonstrate high osseointegrative properties after any variants of treatment and show the potential for application in osteoporosis.

1. Ivanov S.Yu., Muraev A.A., Fomin M.Iu., Dymnikov A.B. Dental implants in complex oral rehabilitation in patients with class III occlusion and partial teeth loss. Stomatologiya 2013; 92(3): 38–42.
2. Ivanov S.Yu., Solodkii V.G., Muraev A.A., Starostin P.V. Russian dental implants system LIKO-M — 5 years clinical experience. Stomatologiya 2013; 92(6): 53–55.
3. Ivanov S.Yu. Muraev A.A., Rukina E.A., Bunev A.A. Immediate dental implantation. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovania 2015; 5: 230, https://doi.org/10.17513/spno.128-22310.
4. Ivanov S.Yu., Muraev A.A., Bunev A.A., Gazhva S.Yu., Rukina E.V. Russian system of dental implants IRIS: experience of 3 years of clinical use. Rossijskij vestnik dental’noj implantologii 2016; 1: 60–66.
5. Muraev A.A., Ivanov S.Yu., Gazhva Yu.V., Muhametshin R.F., Ryabova V.M., Mrue A.H., Korotkova N.L. Mathematical rationale and results of clinical use of IRIS short implants. Stomatologiya 2018; 5: 65–70, https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat20189705165.
6. Brånemark P.I., Adell R., Breine U., Hansson B.O., Lindström J., Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1969; 3(2): 81–100, https://doi.org/10.3109/02844316909036699.
7. Esposito M., Hirsch J.M., Lekholm U., Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I). Success criteria and epidemiology. Eur J Oral Sci 1998; 106(1): 527–551, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0909-8836.t01-2-.x.
8. Hansson S., Norton M. The relation between surface roughness and interfacial shear strength for bone-anchored implants. A mathematical model. J Biomech 1999; 32(8): 829–836, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9290(99)00058-5.
9. Hou C., An J., Zhao D., Ma X., Zhang W., Zhao W., Wu M., Zhang Z., Yuan F. Surface modification techniques to produce micro/nano-scale topographies on Ti-based implant surfaces for improved osseointegration. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2022; 10: 835008, https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.835008.
10. Ren B., Wan Y., Liu C., Wang H., Yu M., Zhang X., Huang Y. Improved osseointegration of 3D printed Ti-6Al-4V implant with a hierarchical micro/nano surface topography: an in vitro and in vivo study. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2021; 118: 111505, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2020.111505.
11. Pebé P., Barbot R., Trinidad J., Pesquera A., Lucente J., Nishimura R., Nasr H. Countertorque testing and histomorphometric analysis of various implant surfaces in canines: a pilot study. Implant Dent 1997; 6(4): 259–265, https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199700640-00002.
12. Brett P.M., Harle J., Salih V., Mihoc R., Olsen I., Jones F.H., Tonetti M. Roughness response genes in osteoblasts. Bone 2004; 35(1): 124–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2004.03.009.
13. Kieswetter K., Schwartz Z., Hummert T.W., Cochran D.L., Simpson J., Dean D.D., Boyan B.D. Surface roughness modulates the local production of growth factors and cytokines by osteoblast-like MG-63 cells. J Biomed Mater Res 1996; 32(1): 55–63, https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4636 (199609)32:155::aid-jbm73.0.co;2-o.
14. de Chaumont F., Dallongeville S., Chenouard N., Hervé N., Pop S., Provoost T., Meas-Yedid V., Pankajakshan P., Lecomte T., Le Montagner Y., Lagache T., Dufour A., Olivo-Marin J.C. Icy: an open bioimage informatics platform for extended reproducible research. Nat Methods 2012; 9(7): 690–696, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2075.
15. Wennerberg A., Albrektsson T., Andersson B., Krol J.J. A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995; 6(1): 24–30, https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060103.x.
16. Le Guéhennec L., Soueidan A., Layrolle P., Amouriq Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater 2007; 23(7): 844–854, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.025.
17. Jemat A., Ghazali M.J., Razali M., Otsuka Y. Surface modifications and their effects on titanium dental implants. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 791725, https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/791725.
18. Bosshardt D.D., Chappuis V., Buser D. Osseointegration of titanium, titanium alloy and zirconia dental implants: current knowledge and open questions. Periodontol 2000 2017; 73(1): 22–40, https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12179.
19. Wennerberg A., Hallgren C., Johansson C., Danelli S. A histomorphometric evaluation of screw-shaped implants each prepared with two surface roughnesses. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998; 9(1): 11–19, https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090102.x.
20. Kyrylenko S., Warchoł F., Oleshko O., Husak Y., Kazek-Kęsik A., Korniienko V., Deineka V., Sowa M., Maciej A., Michalska J., Jakóbik-Kolon A., Matuła I., Basiaga M., Hulubnycha V., Stolarczyk A., Pisarek M., Mishchenko O., Pogorielov M., Simka W. Effects of the sources of calcium and phosphorus on the structural and functional properties of ceramic coatings on titanium dental implants produced by plasma electrolytic oxidation. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2021; 119: 111607, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2020.111607.
21. Hongjie H., Xuanyong L., Chuanxian D. Preparation and in vitro evaluation of nanostructured TiO2/TCP composite coating by plasma electrolytic oxidation. J Alloys Compd 2010; 498(2): 172–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2010.03.147.
22. Diefenbeck M., Mückley T., Schrader C., Schmidt J., Zankovych S., Bossert J., Jandt K.D., Faucon M., Finger U. The effect of plasma chemical oxidation of titanium alloy on bone-implant contact in rats. Biomaterials 2011; 32(32): 8041–8047, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.07.046.
23. Yamaki K., Kataoka Y., Ohtsuka F., Miyazaki T. Micro-CT evaluation of in vivo osteogenesis at implants processed by wire-type electric discharge machining. Dent Mater J 2012; 31(3): 427–432, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2011-051.
24. Matykina E., Skeldon P., Thompson G.E. Fundamental and practical evaluation of plasma electrolytic oxidation coatings of titanium. Surface Engineering 2007; 23(6): 412–418, https://doi.org/10.1179/174329407x247154.
25. Mohedano M., Matykina E., Arrabal R., Pardo A., Merino M.C. Metal release from ceramic coatings for dental implants. Dent Mater 2014; 30(3): e28–e40, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.12.011.
26. Polo T.O.B., Silva W.P.P., Momesso G.A.C., Lima-Neto T.J., Barbosa S., Cordeiro J.M., Hassumi J.S., da Cruz N.C., Okamoto R., Barão V.A.R., Faverani L.P. Plasma electrolytic oxidation as a feasible surface treatment for biomedical applications: an in vivo study. Sci Rep 2020; 10(1): 10000, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65289-2.
27. Momesso G.A.C., Santos A.M.S., Fonseca E., Santos J.M., da Cruz N.C., Okamoto R., Barão V.A.R., Siroma R.S., Shibli J.A., Faverani L.P. Comparison between plasma electrolytic oxidation coating and sandblasted acid-etched surface treatment: histometric, tomographic, and expression levels of osteoclastogenic factors in osteoporotic rats. Materials (Basel) 2020; 13(7): 1604, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13071604.

Muraev A.A., Murzabekov A.I., Ivanov S.Yu., Tarasov Yu.V., Orlov E.A., Dolgalev A.A. Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation for Dental Implant Surface Treatment. Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine 2023; 15(3): 18, https://doi.org/10.17691/stm2023.15.3.02