Evaluation of anti-inflammatory properties on the surface of dental implants depending on the type of processing
Authors: Varzhapetian S. D. , Shyshkin M. A. , Strohonova T. V. , Kokar O. O. 
Published: October 2024

The aim. Study of the anti-inflammatory properties of the surface of commercial dental implants made of zirconium and titanium with different processing methods using the example of the course of the first stage of implantation.
Materials and methods. The structural (microstructure of the surface, biocompatibility, surface corrosion, elemental surface structures) and clinical (severity of peri-implantitis and mucositis, coefficient of implant stability) characteristics of dental implants made of zirconium with surface treatment by the PEO method and implants made of titanium with DAE surface treatment were studied. Median test (χ2), Kruskal–Wallis test (H), univariate variance analysis (F) were used. The difference in parameters was considered statistically significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level.
Results. The PEO surface had a monolithic surface layer with rounded pores averaging 4.51 μm2. The DAE surface had a polyhedral irregular shape, about 7–12 μm2. On the DAE surface: carbon – 4.59 wt%, oxygen – 6.16 wt% and traces of zinc were found. A significant difference in the elemental composition of PEO implants was the presence of chlorine (0.93 wt%), silicium (0.14 wt%), aluminum (0.23 wt%), potassium (0.47 wt%) and magnesium (0.07 wt%). The results of comparing the contact angle of the B&B Dental 29.2 ± 5.9° and Zircon-Prior 21.5 ± 3.3° samples had no statistically significant difference (р > 0.05). After 7 days of exposure in the SBF solution, zirconium implants with a PEO surface increased calcium by 21.87 wt%, phosphorus by 35.68 wt%, sodium by 72.89 wt%, and chlorine by 76.21 wt%. Aluminum, silicium, and zinc were no longer detected. The peculiarity of the titanium implant sample with the DAE surface was only the background level of calcium – 0.06 wt% and the complete absence of phosphorus; the most significant components were oxygen – 16.71 wt%, carbon – 12.37 wt%, sodium – 6.47 wt%, and chlorine – 5.90 wt%. Assessment of cell adhesion to the surface of Zircon-Prior and B&B Dental samples neither on the first nor on the seventh day of incubation did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference. Clinical signs of bone tissue resorption were identified around 30.8 % of implants with a PEO surface and 27.3 % of implants with a DAE surface (p = 0.8); inflammation of the mucous membrane – in the areas of installation of 34.6 % of PEO implants and 72.7 % of DAE (p = 0.009). 3.8 % of PEO implants and 9.1 % of DAE implants were lost (p = 0.44). The average ISQ were significantly different: 59.2 ± 4.1 DAE implants versus 64.4 ± 4.9 PEO implants, p = 0.003.
Conclusions. Resorption of bone tissue around zirconium implants with a PEO surface (30.8 %) was more common than around titanium implants with DAE surface treatment (27.3 %), p = 0.8. Clinical signs of bacterial damage were more frequent and more severe around DAE-coated implants (72.7 %) than in the areas of PEO implants (34.6 %), p = 0.009. In zirconium implants with surface treatment by the PEO method (64.4 ± 4.9 units), the index of stability (ISQ) was significantly higher than in titanium implants with surface treatment by the DAE method (59.2 ± 4.1 units, p = 0.003). The probability of “loss” of titanium implants with DAE surface treatment (9.1 %) at the surgical stages of implantation is higher than that of zirconium implants with PEO surface treatment (3.8 %, p = 0.44).