The present work aims to evaluate the effect of various surface coatings of titanium dental implants by varying the friction coefficient (µ) at the interface between the dental implant and jawbone using finite element analysis (FEA) methods and to provide a comparative analysis between the various surface coatings and implant designs. An accurate model of the dental implant prosthetics consisting of the hard (cortical) and the soft (cancellous) bone, with the various titanium dental implant designs was modelled using a 3D CAD software, and the FE mesh model was generated using HyperMesh 13.0. Three coatings having different coefficient of friction values were selected: Titanium Nitride (TiN) with a friction coefficient of 0.19, Titanium Oxide (TiO2) with a friction coefficient of 0.30 and Zirconium Nitride (ZrN) with a coefficient of friction of 0.49. The non-linear static stress analysis was conducted under three different loading conditions (vertical, lateral and oblique loading) using a CAE solver. The present study showed that surface coatings with high friction coefficients generated lower stresses in the cancellous bone while generating higher stresses in the cortical bone. However, for dental implants having microthreads in their neck region, surface coatings with a high coefficient of friction generated lower stresses at the interface between the cortical bone and the implant. The FEA results indicate that selecting suitable surface coatings would significantly decrease the stresses developed at the bone-implant interface, and future studies should conduct in vivo trials to validate the FEA results obtained.
KaurMSinghK.Review on titanium and titanium based alloys as biomaterials for orthopaedic applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl2019; 102: 844–862.
2.
GuglielmottiMBOlmedoDGCabriniRL.Research on implants and osseointegration. Periodontol 20002019; 79(1): 178–189.
3.
SasikumarYIndiraKRajendranN.Surface modification methods for titanium and its alloys and their corrosion behavior in biological environment: a review. J Bio Tribo Corros2019; 5: 36. DOI: 10.1007/s40735-019-0229-5
4.
KhasnisNDhatrakPKurupA.A review on artificial bone modelling: materials and manufacturing techniques. Mater Today Proc2021; 39: 114–120.
5.
GrassiSPiattelliAde FigueiredoLC, et al. Histologic evaluation of early human bone response to different implant surfaces. J Periodontol2006; 77(10): 1736–1743.
6.
KurupADhatrakPKhasnisN.Surface modification techniques of titanium and titanium alloys for biomedical dental applications: a review. Mater Today Proc2021; 39: 84–90.
7.
WangXLiBZhouL, et al. Influence of surface structures on biocompatibility of TiO2/Ha coatings prepared by MAO. Mater Chem Phys2018; 215: 339–345.
8.
RamiresPARomitoACosentinoF, et al. The influence of titania/hydroxyapatite composite coatings on in vitro osteoblasts behaviour. Biomaterials2001; 22(12): 1467–1474.
9.
TrinoLDDiasLFGAlbanoLGS, et al. Zinc oxide surface functionalization and related effects on corrosion resistance of titanium implants. Ceram Int2018; 44(4): 4000–4008.
10.
SollazzoVPezzettiFScaranoA, et al. Zirconium oxide coating improves implant osseointegration in vivo. Dent Mater2008; 24(3): 357–361.
11.
HeXZhangGWangX, et al. Biocompatibility, corrosion resistance and antibacterial activity of TiO2/CuO coating on titanium. Ceram Int2017; 43(18): 16185–16195.
12.
BrunelloGBrunPGardinC, et al. Biocompatibility and antibacterial properties of zirconium nitride coating on titanium abutments: an in vitro study. PLoS One2018; 13(6): e0199591.
13.
van HoveRPSiereveltINvan RoyenBJ, et al. Titanium-nitride coating of orthopaedic implants: a review of the literature. Biomed Res Int2015; 2015: 485975.
14.
KimSParkCCheonKH, et al. Antibacterial and bioactive properties of stabilized silver on titanium with a nanostructured surface for dental applications. Appl Surf Sci2018; 451: 232–240.
15.
HuangHLChangYYLaiMC, et al. Antibacterial TaN-Ag coatings on titanium dental implants. Surf Coat Technol2010; 205(5): 1636–1641.
16.
EliasCNRochaFANascimentoAL, et al. Influence of implant shape, surface morphology, surgical technique and bone quality on the primary stability of dental implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2012; 16(1): 169–180.
17.
LeeCCLinSCKangMJ, et al. Effects of implant threads on the contact area and stress distribution of marginal bone. J Dent Sci2010; 5(3): 156–165.
18.
HanssonSWerkeM.The implant thread as a retention element in cortical bone: the effect of thread size and thread profile: a finite element study. J Biomech2003; 36(9): 1247–1258.
19.
OswalMMAmasiUNOswalMS, et al. Influence of three different implant thread designs on stress distribution: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc2016; 16(4): 359–365.
20.
WangYYuZGuoX, et al. Surface morphology of modified titanium alloy affects proliferation stability of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Surf Coat Technol2019; 366: 156–163.
21.
BartolomeuFCostaMMGomesJR, et al. Implant surface design for improved implant stability – A study on Ti6Al4V dense and cellular structures produced by selective laser melting. Tribol Int2019; 129: 272–282.
22.
ŁępickaMGrądzka-DahlkeM.Surface modification of Ti6Al4V titanium alloy for biomedical applications and its effect on tribological performance - A review. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci2016; 46: 86–103.
23.
OrlikJZhurovAMiddletonJ.On the secondary stability of coated cementless hip replacement: parameters that affected interface strength. Med Eng Phys2003; 25(10): 825–831.
24.
BahramiBShahrbafSMirzakouchakiB, et al. Effect of surface treatment on stress distribution in immediately loaded dental implants—a 3D finite element analysis. Dent Mater2014; 30(4): e89–e97.
25.
GrantJABishopNEGötzenN, et al. Artificial composite bone as a model of human trabecular bone: the implant–bone interface. J Biomech2007; 40(5): 1158–1164.
26.
HuangHLHsuJTFuhLJ, et al. Biomechanical simulation of various surface roughnesses and geometric designs on an immediately loaded dental implant. Comput Biol Med2010; 40(5): 525–532.
27.
Santiago JuniorJFVerriFRAlmeidaDA, et al. Finite element analysis on influence of implant surface treatments, connection and bone types. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl2016; 63: 292–300.
28.
SavadiRCAgarwalJAgarwalRS, et al. Influence of implant surface topography and loading condition on stress distribution in bone around implants: a comparative 3D FEA. J Indian Prosthodont Soc2011; 11(4): 221–231.
29.
EgeDDuruİKamaliAR, et al. Nitride, zirconia, alumina, and carbide coatings on Ti6Al4V femoral heads: effect of deposition techniques on mechanical and tribological properties. Adv Eng Mater2017; 19(11): 49–54.
30.
UddinGMJawadMGhufranM, et al. Experimental investigation of tribo-mechanical and chemical properties of TiN PVD coating on titanium substrate for biomedical implants manufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2019; 102(5-8): 1391–1404.
31.
RamoulCBeliardouhNEBahiR, et al. Surface performances of PVD ZrN coatings in biological environments. Tribol Mater Surf Interfaces2019; 13(1): 12–19.
32.
SaleemSAhmadRAyubR, et al. Investigation of nano-structured zirconium oxide film on Ti6Al4V substrate to improve tribological properties prepared by PIII&D. Appl Surf Sci2017; 394: 586–597.
33.
QiHWuHY.Effect of surface modification of pure Ti on tribological and biological properties of bone tissue. Surf Eng2013; 29(4): 300–305.
34.
DongHBloyceAMortonPH, et al. Surface engineering to improve tribological performance of Ti–6Al–4V. Surf Eng1997; 13(5): 402–406.
35.
DhatrakPShirsatUSumanthS, et al. Influence of cutting flutes on stress distribution for selected dental implants: numerical studies. Mater Today Proc2021; 38: 2680–2686.
36.
Poursan DalirMHedayatiEHedayatiA. Detection and identification of subcutaneous defects using ultrasonic waves in reflective test. J Mech Eng Sci2021; 15(2): 8003–8015.
37.
HedayatiEVahediM.Numerical investigation of penetration in ceramic/aluminum targets using smoothed particle hydrodynamics method and presenting a modified analytical model. CMES-Comp Model Eng Sci2017; 113(3): 307–340.
38.
GengJ-PTanKBLiuG-R.Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent2001; 85(6): 585–598.
39.
DhatrakPShirsatUSumanthS, et al. Finite element analysis and experimental investigations on stress distribution of dental implants around implant-bone interface. Mater Today Proc2018; 5(2): 5641–5648.
40.
DhatrakPShirsatUSumanthS, et al. Numerical investigation on stress intensity around bone-implant interface by 3-dimensional FEA and experimental verification by optical technique. Mater Today Proc2021; 39: 35–41.
41.
DhatrakPGirmeVShirsatU, et al. Significance of orthotropic material models to predict stress around bone-implant interface using numerical simulation. BioNanoScience2019; 9: 652–659.
42.
GačnikFRenZHrenNI.Modified bone density-dependent orthotropic material model of human mandibular bone. Med Eng Phys2014; 36: 1684–1692.
43.
LofajFKučeraJNémethD, et al. Finite element analysis of stress distributions in mono- and bi-cortical dental implants. Mater Sci Eng C2015; 50: 85–96.
44.
MathieuVVayronRRichardG, et al. Biomechanical determinants of the stability of dental implants: influence of the bone-implant interface properties. J Biomech2014; 47: 3–13.
45.
ChangHCLiHYChenYN, et al. Mechanical analysis of a dental implant system under 3 contact conditions and with 2 mechanical factors. J Prosthet Dent2019; 122(4): 376–382.
46.
WolffJNarraNAntalainenA-K, et al. Finite element analysis of bone loss around failing implants. Mater Des2014; 61: 177–184.
47.
WuAYHsuJTCheeW, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of one-piece and two-piece small-diameter dental implants: in-vitro experimental and three-dimensional finite element analyses. J Formos Med Assoc2016; 115: 794–800.
48.
GeramizadehMKatoozianHAmidR, et al. Finite element analysis of dental implants with and without microthreads under static and dynamic loading. J Long Term Eff Med Implants2017; 27(1): 25–35.
49.
AmidRRaoofiSKadkhodazadehM, et al. Effect of microthread design of dental implants on stress and strain patterns: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Biomed Tech (Berl)2013; 58(5): 457–467.
50.
PalBGuptaSNewAM.A numerical study of failure mechanisms in the cemented resurfaced femur: effects of interface characteristics and bone remodelling. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2009; 223(4): 471–484.
