Accepted Manuscript

In vivo biofunctionalization of titanium patient-specific implants with nano

hydroxyapatite and other nano calcium phosphate coatings: A systematic review

Alexander Bral, Maurice Y. Mommaerts

PII: S1010-5182(15)00418-7
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.12.004
Reference: YJCMS 2257

To appear in: Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery

Received Date: 31 August 2015

Accepted Date: 11 December 2015

Please cite this article as: Bral A, Mommaerts MY, In vivo biofunctionalization of titanium patient-specific
implants with nano hydroxyapatite and other nano calcium phosphate coatings: A systematic review,
Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.12.004.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In vivo biofunctionalization of titanium patient-specific implants with nano

hydroxyapatite and other nano calcium phosphate coatings: A systematic review

PT
RI
Alexander Bral*

Maurice Y. Mommaerts *

SC
* European Face Centre, University Hospital Brussels, Belgium.

U
AN
Corresponding Author: Maurice Y. Mommaerts

European Face Centre

M
Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel
D

Laarbeeklaan 101

B-1090 Brussels
TE

Tel. +32 02 477 60 12

Email: Maurice.Mommaerts@uzbrussel.be
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS

Objective: To delineate the best procedures for increasing osseointegration in cranio-maxillo-facial

surgery using nano-sized calcium phosphate coatings on titanium patient specific implants.

PT
Materials and methods: A multi-database single-reviewer systematic literature review was conducted.

RI
Results: Twenty-eight papers consisting of twenty-five animal studies and three human studies met the

selection criteria. The results of existing literature suggest that titanium implants coated with nano

SC
calcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite improves osseointegration and implant fixation. However, not

all coating techniques enhance biofunctionalization. Factors including implant microroughness,

U
coating thickness, calcium phosphate solubility, and nanotopography contribute significantly to

AN
biofunctionalization. Nonetheless, additional data derived from clinical studies are needed to support

this statement, as well as the possible influence of routine autoclaving procedures.

M
D

Keywords: Implant, Hydroxyapatite, Calcium Phosphate, Titanium, Nanoparticles

TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Summary

INTRODUCTION

PT
Calcium phosphate (CaP) coatings on titanium implants have been shown to improve biofunctionalization, because they facilitate

RI
osseointegration and functional longevity (Le Guehennec et al., 2007). Furthermore, failure to achieve osseointegration results from

SC
insufficient bone formation on the implant surface, which can lead to incomplete fixation of the implant (Mendonca et al., 2008).

U
Hence, the philosophy behind the use of nano CaP and hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings is that the chance of biological integration is

AN
higher when the structure mimics human bone more closely (Alberts et al., 2002).

M
The nanoscale ranges from 0.1 nm to 100 nm. However, if the dimensions of the particles range from 100 nm to 1 µm, they are called

D
submicron particles (Ehrenfest et al., 2004). Important inorganic components of bone are nanoscale CaP particles within the 20- to 40-
TE
nm size range. Further, nanoparticles smaller than 100 nm have the highest reported efficacy regarding cellular integration, and it has

been suggested that these particles induce responses different from submicron structures, which could imply that nano HA and
EP

possibly other CaP coatings could create biocompatible surfaces that unite with bone tissue (Webster et al., 2004, Basu et al., 2009).
C
AC

HA is a calcium orthophosphate that is composed of calcium, phosphorus, and hydroxide and has a chemical formula of

Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2. Furthermore, HA has a CaP ratio of 1.67, and is the least soluble and most stable calcium orthophosphate. The
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

various forms of CaP differ in solubility and stability, which are both characteristics that alter biocompatibility. As well, the coating

technique is another important factor that can alter the solubility and the stability of the coating (Sergey 2007).

PT
The investigation and characterization of nanostructures on implant surfaces is challenging. At present, no quantitative technique is

RI
available to accurately assess the nanotopography on a micro-texturized surface due to an interference between both components.

SC
Consequently, only field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) enables the accurate examination of micro-texturized

surfaces (Ehrenfest et al., 2004). The majority of the publications included in the current review involved the use of scanning electron

U
microscopy (SEM) to investigate the coating on implant surfaces. However, atomic force microscopy (AFM) and optical

AN
interferometry (OI) were also used to examine the coating roughness.

M
Various techniques exist to create nano CaP coatings, such as the dip coating process (Guo et al., 2004), the sol-gel method (Ben-

D
Nissan et al,. 2006), the electrochemical method, the electrophoretic deposition process, the biomimetic deposition process, the
TE
hydrothermal treatment method, and ion beam-assisted deposition (IBAD). In addition, each technique has different advantages and
EP

disadvantages in terms of processing and outcome (Li et al., 2003, Narayanan et al., 2008, Chae et al., 2008, Hu et al., 2010, Lobo et
C

al., 2011).
AC

The effectiveness of nano-CaP coatings can be compared in a hierarchical order on the basis of in vitro and in vivo studies and clinical

studies. In vitro research of surface coatings primarily focuses on evaluating biocompatibility and assessing cytotoxicity, whereas in

vivo studies principally involve histomorphometrical analysis and removal torque (RTQ) testing (Coelho et al., 2009b). The
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

histomorphometrical measurements are capable of showing biocompatibility, osseoconductivity, and the general tissue response of

implants, and the biomechanical tests measure the force or torque that is required to induce failure in the bond between the bone and

PT
implant surface (Recker, 1983). The objective of this paper is to provide a structural review of the techniques that can produce a CaP

coating that yields good in vivo results, and to compare these results to micro CaP–coated and uncoated titanium implants.

RI
Furthermore, this paper includes a systematic review of CaP coatings on titanium implants using histomorphometrical analysis and

SC
RTQ testing.

U
AN
MATERIAL AND METHODS

M
To compare coatings with nano CaP particles with uncoated titanium implants, studies involving animal models as well as human

D
TE
subjects were included; however, studies that investigated implants with submicron coatings were excluded. Coatings were compared

based on the use of histomorphometrical analysis to obtain the percentage of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and the use of RTQ values
EP

to test mechanical stability and implant fixation.

C

Six search engines were used, including PubMed, Web of Science, Directory of Open Access Journals, SAGE journals, the Wiley
AC

Online Library, and the Cochrane Library. A search of PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) using the MeSH terms “nano

hydroxyapatite” OR “nano calcium phosphate,” yielded 974 articles. A Web of Science (https://webofknowledge.com/) search with

TOPIC: (nano hydroxyapatite titanium), OR TOPIC: (nano hydroxyapatite coating), OR TOPIC: (nano calcium phosphate coating),
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

OR TOPIC: (nano calcium phosphate titanium) yielded 1431 articles. In the Directory of Open Access Journals, a search using the

MeSH terms “nano hydroxyapatite” OR “nano calcium phosphate” generated 19 articles, whereas a search of SAGE premier 2011

PT
(http://online.sagepub.com/) using the search terms “nano hydroxyapatite” OR “nano calcium phosphate” returned 93 articles. A

search of the Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/) using the MeSH terms “nano hydroxyapatite titanium,” OR “nano

RI
hydroxyapatite coating,” OR “nano calcium phosphate coating,” OR “nano calcium phosphate titanium” in Full Text provided a total

SC
of 4389 articles. Finally, the Cochrane Library (http://www.cochranelibrary.com/) was searched using the MeSH terms “nano calcium

U
phosphate” OR “nano hydroxyapatite,” which yielded 18 articles.

AN
After the completion of the database searches, the resulting abstracts were screened using the following inclusion criteria: animal or

M
human studies containing data on BIC or RTQ testing for nano-coated cpTi (commercially pure titanium) or Ti6Al4V (titanium alloy)

D
implants. If the abstract met the inclusion criteria, the full article was checked for compliance with the inclusion criteria. Additional
TE
articles identified in the reference lists of the articles meeting the inclusion criteria were likewise searched. Only articles written in
EP
English, German, French, or Dutch were included, and the article publication dates were restricted to before September 1, 2014.
C

After verifying that the articles met the inclusion criteria, PubMed yielded 12 articles, Web of Science database returned 9 articles,
AC

SAGE premier produced 1 article, and the Wiley Online Library yielded 11 articles. No articles from Open Access Journals or the

Cochrane Database met the required inclusion criteria. After removal of duplicate articles, 18 articles remained. Another 6 articles
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

were identified by manually searching the reference lists of the 18 articles that met the study inclusion criteria, which yielded a total of

24 articles (Figure 1).

PT
RI
RESULTS

SC
NanoTite™

U
Method

AN
The NanoTite™ coating technique is a colloidal sol-gel process. The procedure starts with the dipping of the samples in an alcohol-

M
based solution containing CaP nanoparticles. After withdrawal of the substrate, the sample is dried at 100°C. The procedure is able to

D
generate a discrete crystalline deposition (DCD) composed of nano-structured CaP particles that cover 50% of the surface with CaP
TE
nanocrystals, with the remaining surface covered by a TiO2 layer. The CaP particles have a nominal size of 20–100 nm and a
EP

crystallinity of over 95% (Mendes et al., 2007, Gubbi et Towse., 2007).

C

In vivo human experiments

AC

A study compared titanium implants implanted in the posterior maxilla for an average of 8 weeks. (Orsini et al., 2007) Average BIC

values of nano HA coated implants was significantly higher than the BIC values of the control groups (Table 1). The results suggested
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

that the coating of implants could shorten implant osseointegration time, which could be clinically advantageous for minimizing

micromotions and decreasing the healing period.

PT
In another experiment involving human subjects, DAE implants were compared in the posterior maxillary bone with NanoTite™

RI
implants (Goene et al., 2007). The implants were harvested at 4 and 8 weeks after healing. Histomorphometrical analysis showed

SC
enhanced BIC at 4 and 8 weeks for NanoTite™ compared to OSSEOTITE®, which supported increased early osseointegration for

NanoTite™ compared to DAE implants.

U
AN
Another group investigated the histomorphometrical healing properties of dual acid-etched mini-implant surfaces and implants coated

with nHA particles (Telleman et al., 2010). The study design entailed the fixation of iliac crest bone grafts onto maxillary bone with

M
coated or uncoated DAE implants. Harvesting and analysis occurred after 3 months. Histomorphometrical measurements revealed

D
higher BIC and bone area values for coated implants compared to uncoated DAE implants in the maxillary bone. The authors
TE
concluded that implants coated with nano HA particles improved the osseointegration in the maxillary bone only in comparison to
EP

DAE treated titanium implants. NanoTite™ did not improve healing properties at the graft area, which might be due to reduced
C

remodeling of bone in the graft.

AC

In vivo animal experiments

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The interfacial bonding strength of NanoTite™ coated cpTi and Ti6Al4V implants were compared with uncoated cpTi and Ti6Al4V

implants (Mendes et al., 2007). The mean RTQ indicated that uncoated cpTi and Ti6Al4V implants had significantly lower RTQ

PT
values than coated implants (Table 2). As well, the values of these 2 coatings was significantly higher for the Ti6Al4V coated

implants. The authors concluded that nHA deposits are able to promote bone bonding on cpTi and Ti6Al4V surfaces. They

RI
hypothesized that the increased nanosurface complexity induced the bone bonding process, and not so the CaP chemistry.

SC
The same group tested bone growth following the implantation of “ingrowth chambers” in the same animal model (Mendes et al.

U
2009). Miniature bone ingrowth chambers were made of commercially pure titanium or titanium alloy that were dual acid etched

AN
(DAE) and coated by the NanoTite™ method, or only acid etched by a DAE method. Nine days after implantation, a statistically

M
significant difference was detected between NanoTite™ coated implants, which had higher BIC values, compared to implants that

D
were only acid-etched. No statistically significant difference was found between DCD CpTi and DCD titanium alloy Ti6Al4V implant
TE
chambers. The authors concluded that deposition of discrete CaP nanocrystals on a complex microtopography significantly enhanced
EP
osseointegration.
C

In a separate study, dual acid-etched implants and implants coated by DCD nanoparticles were compared following insertion in fresh
AC

extraction sockets of beagle dogs. Harvesting was performed after 2, 4, and 8 weeks (Vignoletti et al., 2009). Higher numerical BIC

percentages were apparent at the early healing phases (2 and 4 weeks); however, no statistically significant differences were detected.

Further, because each group was composed of only 3 dogs, the sample size might have been too low to show any significant
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

difference. Another study compared the BIC values of grit-blasted and acid-etched implants with grit-blasted, acid-etched, and

nanoscale HA surface-modified implants in canine premolar sockets (Al-Hamdan et al., 2011). Implantation was in perfectly sized

PT
implant beds, and in a non-submerged position. The authors observed increased BIC values for both implant groups during the

implantation time between 2 and 8 weeks. As well, the authors confirmed that both implant surfaces were able to induce

RI
osseointegration and to stimulate crestal bone formation. However, the authors were not able to determine whether nanoscale CaP

SC
coatings resulted in an increased bone response at 2, 4, and 8 weeks.

U
Osseointegration was also evaluated in a canine mandibular model by histomorphometrical analysis of NanoTite™ implants versus

AN
DAE implants (de Barros et al., 2012). Insertion was performed in a no-gap model, as well as in a 1-mm, 1.5-mm, and a 2-mm gap

M
model. After 8 weeks of healing, BIC values were not significantly higher for NanoTite™ coated implants, although the

D
microroughened implants exhibited higher numerical values. The authors could not show any benefit of the DCD CaP coating.
TE
Additionally, a separate study examined bone healing to dual acid-etched implants with and without a nano CaP coating (Abrahamson
EP
et al., 2013). The BIC was significantly higher for the uncoated implants compared to nano CaP–coated implants at 2 and 4 weeks

after implantation. Hence, the authors theorized that the additional coating of dual acid-etched implants does not improve the early
C

bone healing properties.

AC

nHA promimic method

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Method

The nHA promimic method is a technique that involves an aqueous solution composed of calcium, phosphor, and a surfactant. The

PT
solution is placed in an ammonia atmosphere to induce the formation of nano-sized crystals, after which the treated liquid is diluted

RI
with a hydrophobic organic solvent to obtain a solvent of nano-sized crystals in water. An oxide coated substrate is then immersed in

SC
the nanocrystal solvent. After removal from the solvent, the organic solvent and surfactant are removed from the surface coating

(Kjellin et Andersson. 2005). This technique has the capacity to produce a nano HA particle coating with dimensions ranging in width

U
from 10 to 15 nm and in length from 100 to 200 nm (Jimbo et al., 2011b, Jimbo et al., 2012).

AN
In vivo animal experiments

M
A comparison of the osseointegration of electropolished titanium implants and electropolished titanium implants modified using the

D
TE
nHA promimic method was conducted in an animal model (Meirelles et al., 2008b). Implants were fixed and stabilized by 2

corticomedullary screws. The results of the experiment indicated that nHA implants had significantly higher BIC values after 4 weeks
EP

compared to the uncoated implants. Surface roughness parameters revealed similar summit densities, whereas AFM showed increased
C

average height deviation at the nanomolar level for the nHA coated implants. However, the difference measured by AFM might have
AC

been due to increased surface porosity (percentage) and the number of pores in nHA-coated implants. Implant surface modification

was also conducted to remove microstructures and prevent their interaction. Based on the information obtained, the authors concluded

that differences in osseointegration are only explained by differences in nanotopography and surface chemical composition.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Another study employed a similar rabbit model as well as electropolished titanium implants and nHA coated titanium implants, but

involved implantation sites that were increased by a 0.35-mm radius to induce a gap healing model (Meirelles et al., 2008a).

PT
Electropolished implants showed higher values, but the differences were not statistically significant. These data did not support the

observations of the previous study. The authors hypothesized that the 0.35-mm gap design might have disrupted osseointegration, and

RI
that a more precise surgical fit was needed.

SC
In another experiment, the enhancement of osseointegration was evaluated using nHA coatings compared to a nano-titanium–covered

U
surface (Meirelles et al., 2008d). The nano-titanium implants were coated with the MetAlvive method, which is a dip-coating

AN
technique that produces a coating layer composed of titanium particles that are 30 nm in diameter. The results indicated that nano-

M
titanium–coated implants had a higher feature density and percentage of implant coverage (45%) compared to nHA, which covered

D
only 23% of the implant surface. In addition, AFM images revealed that the nano-titanium particles had a higher average diameter
TE
compared to the nHA particles. The histomorphometrical analysis showed BIC values of 17% for nHA and 21% for nano-titanium–
EP
coated implants measured on the lateral wall, but the difference was not significant. At the apical region, BIC values were 19% for

nano-titanium–coated implants compared to 7% for nHA, which indicated a significant increase in osseointegration. However, the
C

results in the nano-titanium implants might have been influenced by increased developed surface ratio (Sdr) values at the apical
AC

region. Similar differences were not detected at the lateral wall, and the values for bone area measurements were similar for both

coatings (48%). Hence, these results did not support the enhancement of bone formation by bioactive HA. The authors concluded that

the bone healing events in the study were dependent only on the nano feature size and distribution after a 4-week healing period.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The results of a different study suggested that implants chemically modified with nHA would show enhanced osseointegration

compared to uncoated implants with similar microtopography (Meirelles et al., 2008c). The authors evaluated osseointegration in the

PT
proximal rabbit tibia after 4 weeks. OI microscopy revealed similar average height deviations for blasted implants (1.42 µm) and

nHA-coated implants (1.36 µm). At 4 weeks, a significantly higher BIC was observed for the nHA-coated implants compared to

RI
blasted implants. In addition, RTQ testing revealed similar values for nHA compared to titanium dioxide.

SC
A separate study involving a rabbit model evaluated bone apposition onto coated and uncoated heat treated pure titanium implants

U
(Jimbo et al., 2011b). After 2 weeks of healing, the mean percentage of newly formed bone for the nHA coated implants was

AN
significantly higher. However, after 2 weeks of healing, the BIC values from uncoated implants seemed to reach a plateau. Therefore,

M
the mean BIC value after 4 weeks of healing was in the uncoated implants, which was significantly lower than the BIC observed for

D
nHa-coated implants. No significant differences in average height deviation or surface roughness were observed on the OI images.
TE
Early osseointegration in the rabbit tibia was likewise investigated using nHA-coated implants and sand-blasted, acid-etched, and
EP

heat-treated Ti6Al4V implants (Jimbo et al., 2012). The animals were euthanized after 3 weeks. No significant differences in BIC
C

values were observed for the nHA-coated implants compared to the uncoated implants. However, nano-indentation testing revealed a
AC

significant difference between the uncoated and nHA implants. Consequently, the authors concluded that bone quality around the nHA

coated implants is better.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Another study compared implants in rabbit femurs at 12 weeks that were sand blasted and acid etched followed by either heat

treatment or coating with nHA particles using the nanoHA promimic method (Bryingtong et al., 2013). Interferometer characterization

PT
revealed significant differences in the arithmetic average height deviation from a mean plane with a smoother surface for the nHA-

coated implants (0.93 µm) relative to the controls (1.026 µm). All implants were stable at the time of implant retrieval. However, the

RI
heat treated implants exhibited improved BIC values compared to nHA-coated implants. Furthermore, the data indicated that after a

SC
healing period of 12 weeks, noncoated surfaces with increased microroughness had improved osseointegration compared to nHA

U
coated surfaces. Hence, the authors concluded that nanocrystals deposited onto blasted and acid-etched titanium implants did not

AN
enhance the osseointegration after 12 weeks compared to the control implants. This could suggest that the microtopography is more

M
important after longer healing periods, whereas the nHA coating has an higher impact on the early bone-healing period.

D
TE
Sol-gel method
EP

The methods used in these experiments were very similar to those used with NanoTite™. In the first experiment presented, the coating
C

comprised nanoparticles between 25 and 35 nm, whereas the second experiment involved particles that were approximately 25 nm in
AC

size (Varis et al., 2013, Aksakal et al., 2014).

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In vivo animal experiments

One study compared bioresorbable screws, uncoated Ti6Al4V screws, and Ti6Al4V screws coated with nano HA or micro HA

PT
(Aksakal et al., 2014). The bioresorbable screws were composed of lactic acid and trimethylene carbonate. The screws were implanted

RI
in the tibial bone of sheep, and harvested after 8 weeks by axial pull-out testing. The highest fixation strength was achieved using

SC
nanoscale HA-coated screws, which was higher than microscale-coated implants and the uncoated implants. The authors concluded

that nHA coated screws provide good and stable retention during the bone healing process without inducing any adverse effects.

U
Another experiment compared intramedullary nails that were uncoated or coated with nHA or microscale HA (mHA).(Varis et al.,

AN
2013). The titanium implants were placed endomedullary in a rabbit model for 45 days. The affiliated analyses revealed that the nHA

M
and mHA group had a statistically higher tensile strength than implants in the control group. As well, the results of axial pull-out tests

D
demonstrated statistically significant increases in tensile resistance in the mHA and nHA groups compared to the control group.
TE
EP

Biomimetically deposited calcium phosphate and electrochemically deposited hydroxyapatite coating

C

Biomimetically deposited calcium phosphate coating (BCaP) and electrochemical deposited hydroxyapatite (EDHA) coatings were
AC

investigated and compared by a single experimental group, which explains the grouping of these 2 different coatings.

Method
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The biomimetically deposited CaP coating is produced in 2 steps. The implants are first soaked in a supersaturated calcium and

phosphate solution at a high salt concentration. Inhibitors of crystal growth are then added to aid heterogeneous nucleation. Implants

PT
are soaked for 24 hours and afterward soaked in another solution of supersaturated CaP solution with another composition of salts.

This technique yields a sharp crystal flake approximately 6 to 8 µm long and 100 nm thick composed of octacalcium phosphate, which

RI
covers the entire surface of the implant (Figure 2B).

SC
The electrochemical deposition of hydroxyapatite uses the implant as a working electrode, and a platinum plate as the counter

U
electrode. The electrolyte solution contains calcium nitrate (Ca(NO3)2) and ammonium phosphate (NH4H2PO4) with a CaP ratio of

AN
1.67. A direct current induces the deposition of CaP nanocrystals onto the implant surface, and the process is completed within 2

M
hours. The coating homogenously covers the entire surface with oriented and dense rod-like crystals 70–80 nm in diameter (Figure

D
2C) (Guo-Li et al., 2009, Guo-Li et al., 2010)
TE
EP

In vivo animal experiments

C

The interfacial biomechanical properties of biomimetically deposited CaP and electrochemically deposited nano HA coatings were
AC

compared with roughened implants (Figure 2A) (Guo-Li et al., 2009). IThe mean RTQ of the EDHA coated implants exhibited

significantly greater values at all healing periods compared with the roughened and biomimetically deposited calcium phosphate

coatings. The biomimetic deposition did not increase implant fixation compared to roughened implants. The authors concluded that
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

EDHA coatings improve fixation between implant and bone compared to the roughened surface; however, biomimetic CaP coatings

have little effect on fixation.

PT
To assess osseous healing of biomimetically and electrochemically deposited nHA coatings, the same research group examined

RI
intracortical implants in the tibial bone of rabbits (Guo-Li et al., 2010). The animals were divided into 2 groups, the first of which was

SC
sacrificed at 6 weeks and the second at 12 weeks. Histomorphometrical measurements for electrochemically deposited nano HA

coatings showed significantly greater values at both healing periods compared to the BDCaP implants. No significant differences were

U
found between BDCaP and roughened implants. At 6 weeks, EDHA implants showed significantly higher BIC values compared to

AN
roughened implants, but no changes were noted after a 12-week healing period. The results of the study indicated that the thinner

M
EDHA coating is more favorable for bone integration, which could ensure long-term stable bony fixation of a porous implant.

D
A separate study tested electrochemically deposited nano HA-coated implants in ovariectomized rats to assess osseointegration
TE
(Zhipeng et a., 2012). The animals were sacrificed after 12 weeks, and RTQ testing and histomorphometrical analysis were conducted.
EP

Mean surface roughness of the roughened titanium implants (control group) and of the HA-coated implants (experimental group) were
C

1.185 and 1.167, respectively; however, no significant difference in mean surface roughness was found between the groups. The
AC

histomorphometrical results revealed significantly greater BIC and bone area percentages for nano HA–coated implants compared to

roughened implants by large corundum grit blasting. The authors also found significantly greater RTQ values for the nano HA–coated
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

implants. Hence, the authors demonstrated that a thin nano HA coating is able to increase bone bonding strength and to improve

osteogenesis around implants.

PT
RI
Ion beam–assisted deposition

SC
In vivo animal experiments

U
The performance of a nano-thick ion beam–assisted deposition (IBAD) coating was evaluated after 3 and 5 weeks in a canine model.

AN
Four different groups of alumina-blasted/acid-etched Ti6Al4V implants were compared, as well as uncoated implants (control group),

M
and implants coated by either 1 of 2 IBAD setups or plasma sprayed HA (PSHA) (Coelho et al., 2009c). The difference between the 2

D
IBAD coating techniques was the duration of coating procedure, which yielded a thickness of 30–50 nm for IBAD II and a submicron
TE
coating of 300–500 nm for IBAD I. As well, in vivo testing showed significantly higher torque-to-interface fracture values for PSHA
EP
and IBAD II. Higher BIC values were also found for the PSHA, IBAD I , and IBAD II coatings compared to the control group.

Therefore, the nanocoating yielded inferior results for bone anchorage compared to the micron and submicron coatings.
C
AC

The same group compared BIC percentages and bone anchorage of the proximal tibia in dogs using a rotational torque test (Coelho et

al., 2009a). The implant surfaces consisted of alumina-blasted and acid-etched Ti6Al4V implants, as well as the same implants

modified with an IBAD coating. The control group had higher RTQ values at 2 weeks and 4 weeks compared to the nano group. The
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

resulting BIC values were similar at 2 weeks and 4 weeks for control and nano-coated implants. The results of the study indicated that

there were no significant differences between the implant surfaces.

PT
RI
Other techniques

SC
In the proximal tibial metaphysis and femur of rabbits, the BIC percentage and bone anchorage for CaP-coated implants and porous

U
oxide surface coated implants were compared (Fontana et al., 2011). The coating procedure comprised of dip coating the implant in a

AN
solution of water, surfactant, and nano CaP particles. Afterward, the implants were dried and heat treated. The coating was comprised

M
of nano CaP particles with a nominal size of 10 nm and a thickness of 200 nm, and both implant surfaces had a surface roughness of

D
1.3 µm. After healing periods of 2, 4, and 9 weeks, no significant differences were found in BIC or RTQ values. Furthermore, the
TE
authors did not detect an improvement in interfacial strength or bone apposition with nano CaP coated implants, and even noted
EP
decreases during the 2- to 9-week healing period. In a separate study, grit-blasted/acid-etched surface Ti-implants were compared with

hydrothermally treated implants in the femoral condyles of rats (mJin-Woo et al., 2009). The CaP coating consisted of a 100 nm thick
C

CaP layer, with the surface containing micron, submicron, and nano features. After 6 weeks, the harvested implants demonstrated
AC

significantly greater osseointegration with the CaP-coated implants compared to grit-blasted/acid-etched implants.

DISCUSSION
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

It is known that microcoatings improve early fixation, increase BIC, and aid in the distribution of forces on the implant surface

PT
(Stellino et al., 2002). Clinical studies have established high implant survival rates; however, controversy exists regarding the clinical

benefit of PSHA-coated implants (McGlumphy et al., 2003). This is partly due to the coating adhesion strength, which is poor and may

RI
separate after long implantation periods. The loosened fragments subsequently dissolve in the surrounding tissue fluids and contribute

SC
to the breakdown of bone around the implant. Furthermore, there is a risk that coating mechanical properties diminish and result in

U
fractures in the coating surface (Lacefield et al., 1998, Yang et al., 2005). For nanocoatings, the problem of a secondary interface can

AN
be avoided with total dissolution, which has been verified in multiple studies (Guo-Li et al. 2009, Guo-Li et al., 2010). Furthermore,

M
the dissolution of nanocoatings occurs gradually due to contact with tissue fluids and osteoclastic breakdown. An added benefit is that

the nHA promimic and NanoTite™ coatings do not fully cover the surface. The NanoTite™ coatings are composed of small islands

D
TE
that prevent the occurrence of fractures, which is a great advantage compared to coatings with a microthickness, because coating

detachment is a major problem with micro-thick CaP coatings.

C EP

It has already been determined that nHA particles enhance osteoblast proliferation, adhesion, and calcium deposition (Guo et al.,
AC

2007). Additionally, previous studies have established that nano CaP coatings improve osseointegration in vivo. However, whether

this can be attributed to the chemical alteration or the nanotopography, or whether they act synergistically to improve biofunctionality,

is not known. Two studies investigated the importance of both factors. One study compared the nHA promimic method with nano-
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

titanium. One group investigated chemically different coatings, but there were also dissimilarities in surface coverage and particle

size. (Mereilles et al., 2008c) Considering the smaller surface coverage of the nHA coating compared to nano-titanium coating, these

PT
findings could be biased. However, these data support the theory that the nano feature size and distribution improves tissue response.

The other study showed that CaP coatings improve osteogenic gene expression and enhance distinct biochemical responses in vivo,

RI
but there was a difference in chemical alteration as well as nanotopography (Jimbo et al., 2011a). It can be concluded that the

SC
nanotopography improves biofunctionality; however, it has not been established whether chemical alteration has a significant effect in

U
vivo.

AN
M
Roughened implants improve biofunctionality and ensure higher bone anchorage as opposed to smooth implants. As well, roughened

implants have shown a higher success rate compared to smooth implants (Cochran, 1999). The optimal roughness parameters have

D
TE
been investigated in numerous studies, and they can be defined as an Sa of approximately 1.5 µm with an Sdr of 50%. The ideal

nanotopography has not yet been established in vivo, although it has been studied thoroughly in vitro, and has been shown to improve
EP

adhesion (Curtis and Wilkinson, 1997) The implant coatings used in prior research have different nanotopography and particle size,
C

which is a likely explanation for the apparent dissimilarities in the reported results. Thus, future research should be performed in vivo
AC

to identify the ideal nanotopography and particle size.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Seven studies were identified that utilized the nHA promimic technique, all of which compared titanium implants with or without

nano HA modification. No clinical studies were identified. One study demonstrated that the nHA coating could improve

PT
osseointegration on smooth implants (Meirelles et al., 2008b). However, the improved biofunctionality did not correlate with a gap

model, which would suggest that the nHA coating is not capable of enhancing osseointegration in the absence of a tight fit (Meirelles

RI
et al., 2008a). Another study with similar microroughness reported no significant differences in BIC values; however, at 4 weeks, the

SC
BIC values were numerically higher than corresponding values in the control group (Jimbo et al., 2012). Additionally, the study

U
demonstrated improved bone strength quality with a nano-indenter. A different study reported improved RTQ, whereas another

AN
showed similar results as well as improved BIC values (Meirelles et al., 2008c, Jimbo et al., 2011b). Moreover, these studies

M
demonstrated improved osseointegration and higher fixation strength for nHA-coated implants on a smooth surface and on a

microroughened surface.

D
TE
One study comparing uncoated implants with a higher microroughness during a 12-week healing span showed lower BIC values for

the nano HA promimic–coated implants compared to sand-blasted and acid-etched implants (Bryingtong et al., 2013). The results
EP

indicate that microroughness has a higher impact on short-term periods compared to nanotopography, which has already been shown
C

to be of great importance. The early enhancement of osseointegration is hypothesized to be due to dissolution of nano HA particles
AC

from the surface coating. Hence, the nano HA particles accounted for improved bone formation and supported the differentiation and

proliferation of osteoblast cells (Guo-Li et al., 2010). The microroughness has an important effect early and following longer healing

periods, when dissolution of nHA particles no longer occurs. These findings suggest that the nHA promimic coating technique is
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

capable of improving osseointegration by altering the surface nanotopography and chemical composition. Therefore, this coating

assists in improving the micro-roughened implant fixation and shortens the required healing period. No long-term survival rates were

PT
reported, which indicates the need for testing in long-term clinical studies.

RI
Six animal and 3 human studies involving NanoTite™ implants were included. Two animal studies reported an increase in

SC
osseointegration and bone anchorage over a short-term healing period of 9 days (Mendes et al., 2007, Mendes et al., 2009). As well,

U
numerically higher BIC values were noted in 1 animal study; however, it should be noted that the relatively small sample size might

AN
have negatively influenced the significance of this difference (Vignoletti et al., 2009). Two studies reported no improved

M
osseointegration after a long-term healing period, 1 of which did not establish any enhancement of BIC at early implantation.

Furthermore, 1 study reported poor results for nHA-coated dual acid-etched implants, which exhibited significantly lower

D
TE
histomorphometrical results for the test implants. All 3 human studies demonstrated increased BIC values after 4 to 8 weeks of

implantation (Goene et al., 2007, Orsini et al., 2007, Telleman et al., 2010). These findings suggest improved osseointegration and
EP

bone anchorage for NanoTite™ implants compared to DAE implants. Furthermotr, 2 clinical studies published by the same group
C

evaluated immediate loading implants coated with the NanoTite™ coating, and both studies demonstrated high survival rates within a
AC

1-year follow-up period. Moreover, they established that NanoTite™ implants are viable if the implants have an adequate primary

stability (Ostman et al., 2010, Ostman et al., 2013). Nonetheless, further research involving a longer implantation time is warranted to

substantiate these findings.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Two animal studies involving different sol-gel coating techniques showed promising results, which is in accordance with the sol-gel

PT
method used for NanoTite™ implants but has yet to be confirmed in long-term clinical studies (Varis et al., 2013, Aksakal et al.,

2014). However, the histomorphometrical measurements of nHA IBAD coatings revealed inferior osseointegration results when

RI
compared to PSHA coated and submicron IBAD coated implants (Coelho et al., 2009c, Coelho et al., 2009a). We can conclude that

SC
the results of this type of nanocoating are inferior to those of submicron IBAD and PSHA coatings, and that the nHA IBAD coating

U
does not improve osseointegration or fixation over short-term healing periods.

AN
M
Both studies involving BDCaP coatings failed to show an improvement in porous titanium implants with regard to osseointegration

and bone anchorage. (Guo-Li et al., 2009, Guo-Li et al., 2010). Moreover, the authors reported that the EDHA coating is a better

D
TE
coating in the short-term healing period. Consequently, these findings demonstrate the superiority of the EDHA coating compared to

the BDCaP coating for short-term healing periods. The findings can be attributed to the composition of the BDCaP coating, which is
EP

composed of octacalciumphosphate, which renders it more prone to dissolve in vivo compared to the HA in the EDHA coating
C

(Kamakura et al., 2002). This difference in solubility is presumed to be partially responsible for the resulting variable bone formation.
AC

The dissolution of CaP is essential for ideal bone growth and strong anchorage during early implantation (Barrere et al., 2003). In

fact, it has been suggested that the ideal outcome is for dissolution to occur gradually and completely. This would imply that the

dissolution rate of the coating is similar to the formation of new bone, and that total resorption does not occur before completion of
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

new bone formation. In addition, the total resorption ensures that no possible fractures can occur after long-term healing periods at the

interfacial bonding (Barrere et al., 2003). The dissolution rate of the BDCaP coating was higher than the corresponding rate for the

PT
EDHA coating, and total dissolution occurred before 2 weeks. Furthermore, improved osseointegration could also be attributed to the

surface chemistry or nanotopography of the HA coating compared to the CaP coating. It has already been established that nHA

RI
particles improve osteoblast proliferation, adhesion, and calcium deposition (Lacefield 1998, Wennerberg 1998). In fact, 1 of the

SC
studies demonstrated that bone failure appeared in the bone trabeculae for the EDHA-coated implants, whereas bone failure occurred

U
at the interface between the implant and bone in the BDCaP-coated implants (Guo-Li et al., 2009). Based on all of these findings, we

AN
can conclude that BDCaP-coated implants produce inferior bone anchorage and integration compared to the EDHA-coated implants.

M
These results are in accordance with the findings of a different study that evaluated titanium implants dip coated with nHA, and

reported no difference in implant fixation or osseointegration within a short healing period. Likewise, the lack of biofunctionality can

D
TE
be attributed to the faster dissolution of the CaP produced by this coating technique (Fontana et al., 2011).

The limitations of the current study are that the majority of the prior studies that were included investigated implants over a short
EP

healing period (i.e., between 2 and 12 weeks), and involved relatively small sample sizes, which might have introduced a bias. As
C

well, because the 24 studies that were included consisted of different animal models and different implant designs, the data cannot be
AC

compared. We can only report the coatings that improved biofunctionality, and the evidence on which our findings are based. It should

be noted that the results of numerous studies were not significant, which could be due to the small sample sizes. It is likewise

important to note that the animal studies were based on study models for dental or orthopedic implants. Furthermore, although the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

human and clinical studies involved the maxillary and mandibular alveolar bone, it is not definite that the findings correlate with

patient-specific implants for maxillo-facial defects.

PT
CONCLUSION

RI
SC
Many prior studies have demonstrated that nano-CaP coatings improve biocompatibility and implant fixation; however, not all nano-

U
CaP coatings yield the same results. It has been established that the IBAD technique, dip-coating, and BDCaP coatings revealed no

AN
enhancement on roughened implants. However, the nHA promimic coating has exhibited good results in vivo and in human studies

M
involving early and intermediate healing periods. As well, the NanoTite™ coating demonstrated good results in vivo, as well as in

clinical studies within a 1-year follow-up period. Two different sol-gel methods and a hydrothermal treatment have shown favorable

D
TE
results in early healing periods. These coatings do not appear to exhibit the problems encountered with conventional mHA coatings,

and seem to improve the biofunctionality of the implant. The effect of these added coatings is the ability to minimize the problems of
EP

slow osseointegration and implantation failure. The different techniques produce coatings with varying thickness, nanotopography,
C

particle size, and solubility, which all influence the reaction of bone. At present, the best coating surface is not known. Based on the
AC

current data, the NanoTite™ and nHA promimic coatings yield the most promising results. However, future research should involve a

randomized controlled clinical trial to investigate the coating that yields the best results.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Conflict of interest

PT
The authors have no financial interest regarding the content of this article.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

REFERENCES

PT
Abrahamson I, Linder E, Larsson L, Berglundh T: Deposition of nanometer scaled calcium-phosphate crystals to implants with a dual-

RI
acid etched surface does not improve early tissue integration. Clin. Oral Impl. Res 24:57-62, 2013.

SC
Aksakal B, Kom M, Tosun HB, Demirel M: Influence of micro- and nano-hydroxyapatite coatings on the osteointegration of metallic

U
(Ti6Al4V) and bioresorbable interference screws: an in vivo study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24:813-819, 2014.

AN
Al-Hamdan K, Al-Moaber SH, Junker R, Jansen JA: Effect of implant surface properties on peri-implant bone healing: a histological

M
and histomorphometric study in dogs. Clin Oral Impl Res 22:399-405, 2011.

D
Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P: Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th ed, 2002.
TE
Barrere F, van der Valk CM, Dalmeijer RA, van Blitterswijk CA, de Groot K, Layrolle P: In vitro and in vivo degradation of
EP

biomimetic octacalcium phosphate and carbonate apatite coatings on titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res A 64:378-387, 2003.
C

Basu B, Dhirenda K, Ashok K: Advanced Biomaterials: Fundamentals, Processing, and Applications. Hoboken, NJ, Wiley, 2009.
AC

Ben-Nissan B, Choi AH: Sol-gel production of bioactive nanocoatings for medical applications: part 1: an introduction. Nanomedicine

(Lond) 1:311-319, 2006.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Bryington MS, Hayashi M, Kozai Y, Vandeweghe, Andersson M, Wennerberg A, Jimbo R: The influence of nano hydroxyapatite

coating on osseointegration after extended healing periods. Dent Mater 129:514-520, 2013.

PT
Chae GJ, Jung UW, Jung S, Lee S, Cho KS, Kim CK, Choi SH: Healing of surgically created circumferential gap around nano-coating

RI
surface dental implants in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 18:181-187, 2008.

SC
Cochran DL: A comparison of endosseous dental implant surfaces. J Periodontol 71:1054-1055, 1999.

U
Coelho PG, Cardaropoli G, Suzuki M, Lemons JE: Early healing of nanothickness bioceramic coatings on dental implants. An

AN
experimental study in dogs. J Biomed Maer Res B Appl Biomater 88:387-393, 2009a.

M
Coelho PG, Granjeiro JM, Romanos GE, Suzuki M, Silva NRF, Cardaropoli G, Thomson VP, Lemons JE: Basic research methods and

D
current trends of dental implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 88:579-596, 2009b.
TE
Coelho PG, Lemons JE: Physico/chemical characterization and in vivo evaluation of nanothickness bioceramic depositions on
EP

alumina-blaste/acid-etched Ti-6Al-4V implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A 90:351-361, 2009c.

C

Curtis A, Wilkinson C: Topographical control of cells. Biomaterials 18:1573-1583, 1997.

AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

de Barros RMM, Novaes Jr AB, Queioz A, de Almeida ALG: Early peri-implant endosseous healing of two implant surfaces placed in

surgically created circumferential defects. A histomorphometric and fluorescence study in dogs. Clin Oral Impl Res 23:1340-1351,

PT
2012.

RI
Ehrenfest DMD, Coelho PG, Kang BS, Sul YT, Albrektsson T: Classification of osseointegrated implant srfaces: materials, chemistry

SC
and topography. Trends Biotechnol 28:198-206, 2010.

U
Fontana F, Rocchietta I, Addis A, Schupbach P, Zanotti G, Simion M: Effects of a calcium phosphate coating on the osseointegration

AN
of endosseous implants in a rabbit model. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:760-766, 2011.

M
Goene RJ, Tiziano T and Trisi P: Influence of a nanometer-scale surface enhancement on de novo bone formation on titanium

implants: a histomorphometric study in human maxillae. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 27:211-219, 2007.

D
TE
Gubbi P, Towse R: Qualitative and quantitative analyses of NanoTite-surfaced implants. Society for Biomaterials 804, 2007.
EP

Guo X, Gough JE, Xiao P, Liu J, Shen Z: Fabrication of nanostructured hydroxyapatite and analysis of human osteoblastic cellular
C

response. J Biomed Mater Res A 82:1022-1032, 2007.

AC

Guo-Li Y, Fu-ming H, Ji-an H, Xiao-xiang W, Shi-fang Z: Biomechanical comparison of biomimetically and electrochemically

deposited hydroxyapatite-coated porous titanium implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:420-427, 2010.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Guo-Li Y, Fu-ming H, Ji-an H, Xiao-xiang W, Shi-fang Z: Effects of biomimetically and electrochemically deposited nano-

hydroxyapatite coatings on osseointegration of porous titanium implants. Oral Surg oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 107:782-

PT
789, 2009.

RI
Guo-Li Y, Li H: Fabrication and characterization of thin nano-hydroxyapatite coatings on titanium. Surface Coat Technol 185:268-

SC
274, 2004.

U
Hu X, Shen H, Cheng Y, Xiong X, Wang S, Fang J, Wei S: One-step modification of nano-hydroxyapatite coating on titanium surface

AN
by hydrothermal method. Surface Coat Technol 205:2000-2006, 2010.

M
Jimbo R, Coelho PG, Bryington M, Baldassarri M, Tovar N, Currie F, Hayashi M, Janal MN, Andersson M, Ono D, Vandeweghe S,

Wennerberg A: Nano-hydroxyapatite-coated implants improve bone nanomechanical properties. J Dent Res 91:1172-1177, 2012.

D
TE
Jimbo R, Coelho PG, Vandeweghe S, Schwartz-Filho HO, Hayashi M, Ono D, Andersson M, Wennerberg A: Histological and three-
EP
dimensional evaluation of osseointegration to nanostructured calcium phosphate-coated implants. Acta Biomater 7:4229-4234, 2011a.
C

Jimbo R, Xue R, Hayashi M, Schwartz-Filho HO, Andersson M, Mustafa K, Wennerberg A.: Genetic responses to nanostructured
AC

calcium-phosphate-coated implants. J Dent Res 90:1422-1427, 2011b.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Jin-Woo P, Hye-Kyoung K, Youn-Jeong K. Chang-Hyeon A, Takao H: Enhanced osteoconductivity of micro-structured titanium

implants (Xive S CELLplus) by addition of surface calcium chemistry: a histomorphometric study in the rabbit femur. Clin Oral

PT
Implants Res 20:684-690, 2009.

RI
Kamakura S, Sasano Y, Shimizu T, Hatori K, Suzuki O, Kagayam M, Motegi K: Implanted octacalcium phosphate is more resorbable

SC
than beta-tricalcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite. J Biomed Mater Res 59:29-34, 2002.

U
Kjellin P, Andersson M: Synthetic nano-sized crystalline calcium phosphate and method of production. Patent US 8206813 B2, 2005.

AN
Lacefield WR: Current status of ceramic coatings for dental implants. Implant Dent. 7:315-322, 1998.

M
Le Guehennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y: Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration.

D
Dental Mater 23:844-854, 2007.
TE
Li P: Biomimetic nano-apatite coating capable of promoting bone ingrowth. J Biomed Mater Res A 66:79-85, 2003.
EP

Lobo A, Otubo J, Matsushima JT, Corat EJ: Rapid obtaining of nano-hydroxyapatite bioactive films on NiTi shape memory alloy by
C

electrodeposition process. J Mater Eng Perform 20:793-797, 2011.

AC

McGlumphy EA, Peterson LJ, Larsen PE, Jeffcoat MK: Prospective study of 429 hydroxyapatite-coated cylindric omniloc implants

placed in 121 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:82-92, 2003.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Meirelles L, Albrektsson T, Kjellin P, Arvidsson A, Franke-Stenport V, Andersson, Currie F, Wennerberg A: Bone reaction to nano

hydroxyapatite modified titanium implants placed in a gap-healing model. J Biomed Mater Res 87:624-631, 2008a.

PT
Meirelles L, Arvidsson A, Andersson M, Kjellin P, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A: Nano hydroxyapatite structures influence early

RI
bone formation. J Biomed Mater Res A 87:299-307, 2008b.

SC
Meirelles L, Currie F, Jacobsson M, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A: The effect of chemical and nanotopographical modifications on

U
the early stages of osseointegration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23:641-647, 2008c.

AN
Meirelles L, Melin L, Peltola T, Kjellin P, Kangasniemi I, Curri F, Andersson M, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A: Effect of

M
hydroxyapatite and titanium nanostructures on early in vivo bone response. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 10:245-254, 2008d.

D
Mendes VC, Moineddin R, Davies JE: Discrete calcium phosphate nanocrystalline deposition enhances osteoconduction on titanium-
TE
based implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 90:577-585, 2009.
EP

Mendes VC, Moineddin R, Davies JE: The effect of discrete calcium phosphate nanocrystals on bone-bonding to titanium surfaces.
C

Biomaterials 28:4748-4755, 2007.

AC

Mendonca G, Mendonca DBS, Aragao FJL, Cooper LF: Advancing dental implant surface technology—from micron- to

nanotopography. Biomaterials 29:3822-3835, 2008.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Narayanan R, Kwon TY, Kim KH: Direct nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite formation on titanium from ultrasonated electrochemical

bath at physiological pH. Mater Sci Eng 28:1265-1270, 2008.

PT
Orsini G, Piattelli M, Scarano A, Petrone G, Kenealy J, Piattelli A, Caputi S: Randomized, controlled histologic and

RI
histomorphometric evaluation of implants with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate added to the dual acid-etched surface in the human

SC
posterior maxilla. J Periodontol 78:209-218, 2007.

U
Ostman PO, Wennerberg A , Ekestubbe A, Albrektsson T: Immediate occlusal loading of NanoTite™ tapered implants: a prospective

AN
1‐year clinical and radiographic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 15:809-818, 2013.

M
Ostman PO, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T: Immediate occlusal loading of NanoTite™ PREVAIL® implants: a prospective 1‐year

D
clinical and radiographic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 12:39-47, 2010.
TE
Recker R: Bone Histomorphometry Techniques and Interpretation. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press, 1983.
EP

Sergey VD: Calcium orthophosphates. J Mater Sci 42:1061-1095, 2007.

C

Stellino G, Landi L: A 6 year unloaded hydroxyapatite-coated dental implant placed into an extraction socket in conjunction with
AC

nonresorbable hydroxyapatite grafting material: histologic evaluation. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 22:575-581, 2002.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Telleman G, Albrektsson T, Hoffman M, Johansson CB, Vissink A, Meijer HJA, Raghoebar GM.: Peri-implant endosseous healing

properties of dual acid-etched mini-implants with a nanometer-sized deposition of CaP: a histological and histomorphometric human

PT
study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 12:153-160, 2010

RI
Varis O, Aksakal B, Say Y, Kom M, Yilmaz E: An alternative method in fixation of tibial transverse fractures by intramedullar

SC
nailing: biomechanical and histopathologic investigation. Acta Bioeng Biomech 15:81-90, 2013.

U
Vignoletti F, Johansson C, Albrektsson T, De Sanctis M, San Roman F, Sanz M: Early healing of implants placed into fresh extraction

AN
sockets: an experimental study in the beagle dog. De novo bone formation. J Clin Periodontol 36:265-277, 2009.

M
Webster T, Eijofor JU: Increased osteoblast adhesion on nanophase metals: Ti, Ti6Al4V and CoCrMo. Biomaterials 25:4731-4739,

2004.

D
TE
Wennerberg A: The importance of surface roughness for implant incorporation. Int J Machine Tools Manufact 38:657-662, 1998.
EP

Yang YL, Kim KH, Ong JL: A review on calcium phosphate coatings produced using a sputtering process—an alternative to plasma
C

spraying. Biomaterials. 26:327-337, 2005.

AC

Zhipeng C, Caihong G, Wenjing D, Fu-ming H, Shi-fang H, Gui-Li H: Effect of thin nano-hydroxyapatite coating on implant

osseointegration in ovariectomized rats. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 113:48-53, 2012.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 1. PRISMA diagram: selection procedure of the articles included in the review.

Figure 2. (A) Roughened group; (B) BDCaP-coated surface; (C) EDHA coated surface (Guo-Li

PT
et al., 2009).

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1.: Human study data

Number G

PT
Anatomical Implantation of si

Article position Implant Surface modification Nanoparticles period implants (m

RI
Orsini et Posterior

SC
al., 2007 maxilla Ti6Al4V Dual acid etched 8 wk 16 0

CaP particles

U
Dual etched and DCD 20-100nm in
AN
coating size 8 wk 16 0

Goene et Posterior
M
al., 2007 maxilla Ti6Al4V Dual acid etched 4 wk 3 0
D

CaP particles

Dual etched and DCD 20-100nm in

TE

coating size 4 wk 3 0
EP

Posterior

maxilla Ti6Al4V Dual acid etched 8 wk 5 0

C

CaP particles
AC

Dual etched and DCD 20-100nm in

coating size 8 wk 5 0

Telleman Posterior

et al., maxilla Ti6Al4V Dual acid etched 12 wk 15 0

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2010

CaP particles

Dual etched and DCD 20-100nm in

coating size 12 wk 15 0

PT
RI
Implantation period, duration between implantation and harvesting of implant; Number of

implants, number of implants in that group that were implanted; Gap size, difference in diameter

SC
between implant and implantation bed; BIC, bone implant contact of implant after harvesting; P

U
value, P value between bone–implant contact values of implant group and implant group of the

row below. AN
M
Table 2. Animal study data
D
TE

Anatomical Implantation

Article Animal Position Implant Surface Modification Nanoparticles Period

EP

Aksakal et
C

al., 2014 Sheep Femur Ti6Al4V No modification 45d

AC

Sol gel method nHA CaP particles

coated 25-35nm 45d

Sol gel method mHA CaP particles

Sheep Femur Ti6Al4V coated 20-30µm 45d

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Sol gel method nHA CaP particles

coated 25-35 nm 45d

Al-

PT
Hamdan et Premolar Grit blasted and acid

RI
al.,2011 Beagle dogs sockets Ti6Al4V etched 2w

Dual etched and DCD CaP particles

SC
coating 20-100 nm 2w

Premolar Grit blasted and acid

U
Beagle dogs sockets Ti6Al4V etched 4w
AN Dual etched and DCD CaP particles
M
coating 20-100 nm 4w

Premolar Grit blasted and acid

D

Beagle dogs sockets Ti6Al4V etched test: 8w

TE

dual etched and DCD CaP particles

coating 20-100 nm 8w
EP

de Barros Premolar

et al., 2012 Mongrel dogs sockets Ti6Al4V Dual acid etched 8w

C

Dual etched and DCD CaP particles

AC

coating 20-100 nm 8w

Premolar

Mongrel dogs sockets Ti6Al4V Dual acid etched 8w

Dual etched and DCD CaP particles 8w

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

coating 20-100 nm

Premolar

Mongrel dogs sockets Ti6Al4V Dual acid etched 8w

Dual etched and DCD CaP particles

PT
coating 20-100 nm 8w

RI
Premolar

Mongrel dogs sockets Ti6Al4V Dual acid etched 8w

SC
Dual etched and DCD CaP particles

coating 20-100 nm 8w

U
Bryingtong Swedish lop- Sand blasted, acid etched,

et al., 2013 eared rabbits Femur

AN
Ti6Al4V and heat treatment 12w
M
nHA

particles: 10-
D

Sand blasted, acid etched, 15 nm wide

TE

and nHA promimic and 100-200

method nm long 12w

EP

Coelho et Alumina blastting/acid

al., 2009c Beagle dogs Tibia Ti6Al4V etched 3w

C

Alumina blastting/acid
AC

etched and ion beam– HA 30-50

assisted deposition I nm thick 3w

Alumina blasting/acid

Beagle dogs Tibia Ti6Al4V etched 5w

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Alumina blasting/acid

etched and ion beam– HA 30-50

assisted deposition I nm thick 5w

PT
Alumina blasting/acid

RI
etched and ion beam– HA 300-500

Beagle dogs Tibia Ti6Al4V assisted deposition I nm thick 3w

SC
Alumina blasting/acid

etched and ion beam– HA 30-50

U
assisted deposition I nm thick 3w
AN Alumina blasting/acid
M
etched and ion beam– HA 300-500

Beagle dogs Tibia Ti6Al4V assisted deposition I nm thick 5w

D

Aluminum blasting/acid
TE

etched and ion beam HA 30-50

assisted deposition I nm thick 5w

EP

Commercialy available

plasma sprayed
C

Beagle dogs Tibia Ti6Al4V hydroxyapatite coating 3w

AC

Alumina blastting/acid

etched and Ion beam HA 30-50

assisted deposition I nm thick 3w

Beagle dogs Tibia Ti6Al4V Commercialy available 5w

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Plasma sprayed

hydroxyapatite coating

Aluminum blasting/acid

etched and ion beam– HA 30-50

PT
assisted deposition I nm thick 5w

RI
Coelho et Alumina blasting/acid

al., 2009a Beagle dogs Tibia Ti6Al4V etched 2w

SC
Aluminum blasting/acid

etched and ion beam– HA 30-50

U
assisted deposition I nm thick 2w
AN Aluminum blasting/acid
M
Beagle dogs Tibia Ti6Al4V etched 4w

Aluminum blasting/acid
D

etched and ion beam– HA 30-50

TE

assisted deposition I nm thick 4w

Aluminum blasting/acid
EP

Beagle dogs Tibia Ti6Al4V etched 2w

Aluminum blasting/acid
C

etched and ion beam– HA 30-50

AC

assisted deposition I nm thick 2w

Aluminum blasting/acid

Beagle dogs Tibia Ti6Al4V etched 4w

Aluminum blasting/acid HA 30-50 4w

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

etched and ion beam– nm thick

assisted deposition I

Fontana et New Zealand Titanium porous oxide

al., 2011 white rabbits Tibia Ti6Al4V surface 2w

PT
<200 nm

RI
thick, HA

particles 10

SC
Ca-P–coated implant nm in

surface diameter 2w

U
New Zealand Titanium porous oxide

white rabbits Tibia

AN
Ti6Al4V surface 4w
M
<200 nm

thick, HA
D

particles 10
TE

Ca-P coated implant nm in

surface diameter 4w
EP

New Zealand Titanium Porous oxide

white rabbits Tibia Ti6Al4V surface 9w

C

<200 nm
AC

thick, HA

particles 10

Ca-P–coated implant nm in

surface diameter 9w
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

New Zealand Titanium porous oxide

white rabbits Femur Ti6Al4V surface 2w

<200 nm

thick, HA

PT
particles 10

RI
Ca-P–coated implant nm in

surface diameter 2w

SC
New Zealand Titanium porous oxide

white rabbits Femur Ti6Al4V surface 4w

U
<200 nm
AN thick, HA
M
particles 10

Ca-P–coated implant nm in
D

surface diameter 4w
TE

New Zealand Titanium porous oxide

white rabbits Femur Ti6Al4V surface 9w

EP

<200 nm

thick, HA
C

particles 10
AC

Ca-P–coated implant nm in

surface diameter 9w

New Zealand Titanium porous oxide

white rabbits Tibia Ti6Al4V surface 2w

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

<200 nm

thick, HA

particles

PT
Ca-P–coated implant 10nm

RI
surface diameter 2w

SC
New Zealand Titanium porous oxide

white rabbits Tibia Ti6Al4V surface 4w

U
<200 nm
AN thick, HA
M
particles 10

Ca-P–coated implant nm in
D

surface diameter 4w
TE

New Zealand Titanium porous oxide

EP

white rabbits Tibia Ti6Al4V surface 9w

<200 nm
C

thick, HA
AC

particles 10

Ca-P–coated implant nm in

surface diameter 9w

Guo-Li et White rabbits Tibia Titanium Polished, sandblasted, and 6w

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

al., 2009 dual acid etched

100-nm thick

Roughened and crystal flake

biomimetical deposited 6-8 µm long

PT
CaP CaP 6w

RI
Polished, sandblasted, and

White rabbits Tibia Titanium dual acid etched 12w

SC
100 nm thick

Roughened and crystal flake

U
biomimetical deposited 6-8 µm long
AN CaP CaP 12w
M
Polished, sandblasted, and

White rabbits Tibia Titanium dual acid etched 6w

D

Roughened and Crystals with

TE

electrochemically diameter 70-

deposited HA 80 nm HA 6w
EP

Polished, sandblasted, and

White rabbits Tibia Titanium dual acid etched 12w

C

Roughened and Crystals with

AC

electrochemically diameter 70-

deposited HA 80 nm HA 12w

Roughened and 100-nm thick

White rabbits Tibia Titanium biomimetical deposited crystal flake 6w

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

CaP 6-8 µm long

CaP

Roughened and crystals with

electrochemically diameter 70-

PT
deposited HA 80 nm HA 6w

RI
100-nm thick

Roughened and crystal flake

SC
biomimetical deposited 6-8 µm long

White rabbits Tibia Titanium CaP CaP 12w

U
Roughened and Crystals with
AN electrochemically diameter 70-
M
deposited HA 80 nm HA 12w

Guo-Li et Polished, sandblasted, and

D

al., 2010 White rabbits Femur Titanium dual acid etched 2w

TE

100-nm thick

Roughened and crystal flake

EP

biomimetical deposited 6-8 µm long

CaP CaP 2w
C

Polished, sandblasted, and

AC

White rabbits Femur Titanium dual acid etched 4w

Roughened and 100 nm thick

biomimetical deposited crystal flake

CaP 6-8 µm long 4w

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

CaP

Polished, sandblasted, and

White rabbits Femur Titanium dual acid etched 8w

100-nm thick

PT
Roughened and crystal flake

RI
biomimetical deposited 6-8 µm long

CaP CaP 8w

SC
Polished, sandblasted, and

White rabbits Femur Titanium dual acid etched 2w

U
Roughened and Crystals with
AN electrochemically diameter 70-
M
deposited HA 80 nm HA 2w

Polished, sandblasted, and

D

White rabbits Femur Titanium dual acid etched 4w

TE

Roughened and Crystals with

electrochemically diameter 70-

EP

deposited HA 80 nm HA 4w

Polished, sandblasted, and

C

White rabbits Femur Titanium dual acid etched 8w

AC

Roughened and Crystals with

electrochemically diameter 70-

deposited HA 80 nm HA 8w

White rabbits Femur Titanium Roughened and 100-nm thick 2w

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Biomimetical deposited crystal flake

CaP 6-8 µm long

CaP

Roughened and Crystals with

PT
electrochemically diameter 70-

RI
deposited HA 80 nm HA 2w

100-nm thick

SC
Roughened and crystal flake

biomimetical deposited 6-8 µm long

U
White rabbits Femur Titanium CaP CaP 4w
AN Roughened and Crystals with
M
electrochemically diameter 70-

deposited HA 80 nm HA 4w
D

100-nm thick
TE

Control: roughened and crystal flake

biomimetical deposited 6-8 µm long

EP

White rabbits Femur Titanium CaP test CaP 8w

Roughened and Crystals with

C

electrochemically diameter 70-

AC

deposited HA 80 nm HA 8w

Jimbo et Swedish lop-

al., 2011b eared rabbits Femur cpTi No modification 2w

nHA promimic method nHA 2w

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

particles: 10-

15 nm wide

and 100-200

nm long

PT
Swedish lop-

RI
eared rabbits Femur cpTi No modification 4w

nHA

SC
particles: 10-

15 nm wide

U
and 100-200
AN nHA promimic method nm long 4w
M
Jimbo et Swedish lop-

al., 2012 eared rabbits Femur Ti6Al4V Heat treatment 3w

D

nHA
TE

particles: 10-

Grit blasted, acid-etched 15 nm wide

EP

surface and hydrothermal and 100-200

treatment nm long 3w
C

Jin-Woo et New Zealand Heat treatment and nHA

AC

al., 2009 white rabbits Femur Ti6Al4V promimic method 6w

Grit blasted, acid-etched CaP particles

surface and hydrothermal with 100-nm

treatment dimensions 6w
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Meirelles

et al., New Zealand

2008b rabbits Tibia cpTi Electropolished 4w

Electropolished and nHA nHA

PT
promimic method particles 4w

RI
Meirelles

et al., New Zealand

SC
2008a rabbits Tibia cpTi Electropolished 4w

Electropolished and nHA nHA

U
promimic method particles 4w

Meirelles
AN
M
et al., New Zealand Grit blasting and titanium 24-nm nano-

2008d rabbits Tibia cpTi coating titanium 4w

D

Grit blasting and nHA 30-nm nHA

TE

promimic method particles 4w

Meirelles
EP

et al., New Zealand

2008c rabbits Tibia Ti6Al4V Titanium oxide blasting 4w

C

nHA
AC

nHA promimic method particles 4w

Mendes et

al., 2007 Wistar rats Femur cpTi Dual acid etched 9d

Dual etched and DCD CaP particles 9d

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

coating 20-100 nm

Mendes et

al. 2009 Wistar rats Femur cpTi Dual acid etched 9d

Dual etched and DCD CaP particles

PT
coating 20-100 nm 9d

RI
Varis et New Zealand

al., 2013 rabbits Tibia Titanium No modification 6w

SC
nHA

particles 25

U
sol gel method nHA nm 6w
AN mHA
M
New Zealand particles 25

rabbits Tibia Titanium sol gel method mHA µm 6w

D

nHA
TE

particles 25

sol gel method nHA nm 6w

EP

Vignoletti Premolar

et al., 2009 Beagle dogs sockets Ti6Al4V Dual acid etched 2w

C

Dual etched and DCD CaP particles

AC

coating 20-100 nm 2w

Premolar

Beagle dogs sockets Ti6Al4V Dual acid etched 4w

Dual etched and DCD CaP particles 4w

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

coating 20-100 nm

Premolar

Beagle dogs sockets Ti6Al4V Dual acid etched 8w

Dual etched and DCD CaP particles

PT
coating 20-100 nm 8w

RI
Zhipeng et Ovariectomized

al., 2012 rats Tibia Titanium Roughened 12w

SC
Rodlike

Roughened and nHA crystals, size

U
coated not shown 12w

Ovariectomized
AN
M
rats Tibia Titanium Roughened 12w

Rodlike
D

Roughened and nHA crystals, size

TE

coated not shown 12w

EP

Implantation period, duration between implantation and harvesting of implant; Number of

C

implants, number of implants in that group that were implanted; Gap size, difference in diameter
AC

between implant and implantation bed, given in millimeters; RTQ, removal torque values in

newton centimeters and standard deviation if known; BIC, bone implant contact of implant after

harvesting in percentage and standard deviation if known; P value, P value between bone–

implant contact or removal torque values of implant group and implant group of row below.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

*Some data are repeated due to the statistical comparison of the implant group with the implant

group of the row below.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC