Hydrophilic Properties of Dental Implant Surfaces: Literature Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12974/2311-8695.2025.13.05Keywords:
Contact angle, Dental implants, Epithelial cells, Hydrophilicity, Immune cells, Osseointegration, WettabilityAbstract
This literature review investigated the role of implant surface wettability in the success of dental implants, focusing on hydrophilic properties. Thorough search of PubMed, EBSCO, MDPI, and Google Scholar was conducted from November 11 to December 16, 2024, using terms related to implant surface wettability, hydrophilicity, immune cells, soft tissues and osseointegration. Studies published in English, focusing on the hydrophilicity of dental implants, were included. Exclusion criteria applied to studies unrelated to wettability or non-English articles. From 33 initial studies, 28 met inclusion criteria, with 15 undergoing full-text analysis and 13 reviewed from abstracts. Furthermore, each article went through quality analysis using CONSORT checklist designed for dental materials research and new techniques. Hydrophilic surfaces have been shown to enhance early cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation, particularly in osteoblastic activity, which is essential for osseointegration. In addition to promoting bone healing, hydrophilic surfaces also support soft tissue integration, improving the formation of a tight epithelial seal and reducing the risk of infection and periimplantitis. The response of innate immune cells, such as neutrophils and macrophages, is also influenced by surface wettability, with hydrophilic surfaces fostering an environment conducive to bone formation by promoting beneficial immune cell activity and osteogenesis. This review highlights the importance of surface modification, specifically hydrophilic treatments, in optimizing the biological response and long-term success of dental implants.
References
Eriksson C, Nygren H, Ohlson K. Implantation of hydrophilic and hydrophobic titanium discs in rat tibia: cellular reactions on the surfaces during the first 3 weeks in bone. Biomaterials. 2004; 25(19): 4759-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.12.006
Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Chrcanovic B. Long-term clinical outcome of implants with different surface modifications. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018; 11(Suppl 1): S123-36.
Bornstein MM, Valderrama P, Jones AA, Wilson TG, Seibl R, Cochran DL. Bone apposition around two different sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implant surfaces: a histomorphometric study in canine mandibles. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19(3): 233-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01473.x
Gittens RA, Scheideler L, Rupp F, Hyzy SL, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Schwartz Z, Boyan BD. A review on the wettability of dental implant surfaces II: biological and clinical aspects. Acta Biomater. 2014; 10(7): 2907-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2014.03.032
Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977; 16: 1-132.
Kondo T, Yamada M, Egusa H. Innate immune regulation in dental implant osseointegration. J Prosthodont Res. 2024; 68(4): 511-21. https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_23_00198
Rompen E, Domken O, Degidi M, Pontes AE, Piattelli A. The effect of material characteristics, surface topography and implant components on soft tissue integration: a literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17(Suppl 2): 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01367.x
MacLeod AS, Mansbridge JN. The innate immune system in acute and chronic wounds. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2016; 5(2): 65-78. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2014.0608
Mello-Machado RC, Sartoretto SC, Granjeiro JM, et al. Osseodensification enables bone healing chambers with improved low-density bone site primary stability: an in vivo study. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1): 15436. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94886-y
Amengual-Peñafiel L, Córdova LA, Jara-Sepúlveda MC, Brañes-Aroca M, Marchesani-Carrasco F, Cartes-Velásquez R. Osteoimmunology drives dental implant osseointegration: a new paradigm for implant dentistry. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2021; 57: 12-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.2021.01.001
Zhao G, Schwartz Z, Wieland M, Rupp F, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Cochran DL, Boyan BD. High surface energy enhances cell response to titanium substrate microstructure. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005; 74(1): 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.30320
Hicklin SP, Schneebeli E, Chappuis V, Janner SF, Buser D, Brägger U. Early loading of titanium dental implants with an intra-operatively conditioned hydrophilic implant surface after 21 days of healing. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27(7): 875-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12706
Abaricia JO, Farzad N, Heath TJ, Simmons J, Morandini L, Olivares-Navarrete R. Control of innate immune response by biomaterial surface topography, energy, and stiffness. Acta Biomater. 2021; 133: 58-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2021.04.021
Lu LY, Loi F, Nathan K, Lin TH, Pajarinen J, Gibon E, et al. Pro-inflammatory M1 macrophages promote osteogenesis by mesenchymal stem cells via the COX-2-prostaglandin E2 pathway. J Orthop Res. 2017; 35(11): 2378-85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23553
Hamlet SM, Lee RSB, Moon HJ, Alfarsi MA, Ivanovski S. Hydrophilic titanium surface-induced macrophage modulation promotes pro-osteogenic signalling. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30(11): 1085-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13522
Grandin HM, Berner S, Dard M. A review of titanium-zirconium (TiZr) alloys for use in endosseous dental implants. Materials. 2012; 5(8): 1348-60. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma5081348
Rack HJ, Qazi JI. Titanium alloys for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2006; 26(8): 1269-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2005.08.032
Albrektsson T, Chrcanovic B, Jacobsson M, Wennerberg A. Review of osseointegration of implants: a biological and clinical overview. JSM Dent Surg. 2017; 2(3): 1022.
Presland RB, Dale BA. Epithelial structural proteins of the skin and oral cavity: function in health and disease. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2000; 11(4): 383-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/10454411000110040101
Quirynen M, De Soete M, Van Steenberghe D. Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002; 13(1): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130101.x
Esposito M, Thomsen P, Ericson LE, Lekholm U. Histopathologic observations on early oral implant failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14(6): 798-810.
Croes M, Oner FC, Kruyt MC, Blokhuis TJ, Bastian O, Dhert WJA, Alblas J. Proinflammatory mediators enhance the osteogenesis of human mesenchymal stem cells after lineage commitment. PLoS One. 2015; 10(7): e0132781. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132781
Glass GE, Chan JK, Freidin A, Feldmann M, Horwood NJ, Nanchahal J. TNF-α promotes fracture repair by augmenting the recruitment and differentiation of muscle-derived stromal cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(4): 1585-90. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018501108
Bastian OW, Koenderman L, Alblas J, Leenen LP, Blokhuis TJ. Neutrophils contribute to fracture healing by synthesizing fibronectin extracellular matrix rapidly after injury. Clin Immunol. 2016; 164: 78-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clim.2016.02.001
Hazeldine J, Hampson P, Lord JM. The impact of trauma on neutrophil function. Injury. 2014; 45(12): 1824-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.06.021
Abaricia JO, Shah AH, Musselman RM, Olivares-Navarrete R. Hydrophilic titanium surfaces reduce neutrophil inflammatory response and NETosis. Biomater Sci. 2020; 8(8): 2289-99. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9BM01474H
Wu AC, Raggatt LJ, Alexander KA, Pettit AR. Unraveling macrophage contributions to bone repair. Bonekey Rep. 2013; 2: 373. https://doi.org/10.1038/bonekey.2013.107
Loi F, Córdova LA, Zhang R, Pajarinen J, Lin TH, Goodman SB, Yao Z. The effects of immunomodulation by macrophage subsets on osteogenesis in vitro. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016; 7: 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-016-0276-5
