Abstract
Nanosurfaces have improved clinical osseointegration by increasing bone/implant contact. Neovascularization is considered an essential prerequisite to osteogenesis, but no previous reports to our knowledge have examined the effect of surface topography on the spatio-temporal pattern of neovascularization during peri-implant healing. We have developed a cranial window model to study peri-implant healing intravitally over clinically relevant time scales as a function of implant topography. Quantitative intravital confocal imaging reveals that changing the topography (but not chemical composition) of an implant profoundly affects the pattern of peri-implant neovascularization. New vessels develop proximal to the implant and the vascular network matures sooner in the presence of an implant nanosurface. Accelerated angiogenesis can lead to earlier osseointegration through the delivery of osteogenic precursors to, and direct formation of bone on, the implant surface. This study highlights a critical aspect of peri-implant healing, but also informs the biological rationale for the surface design of putative endosseous implant materials.
Highlights
Nanosurfaces have improved clinical osseointegration by increasing bone/implant contact
Day 22 hv Discussion While neovascularization is an essential prerequisite to osteogenesis, no previous published reports have examined the effect of implant surface topography on the spatio-temporal pattern of neovascularization during endosseous peri-implant healing in vivo
Our results clearly show that the surface design of the implant has a profound effect on the pattern of neovascularization with new vessels being developed at, or near, the implant surface and the vascular network maturing through remodeling sooner in the presence of a topographically complex surface
Summary
Nanosurfaces have improved clinical osseointegration by increasing bone/implant contact. While implant surface design is considered a critical driver of osteoconduction, and topographically complex implants have been shown to increase bone implant contact (BIC)[12,13,14], no evidence has emerged to suggest that implant topography has an influence on peri-implant neovascularization. Some authors have reported that rough implant surfaces affect endothelial cell proliferation, motility[21], and endothelialization (tube formation)[22]. To complement these in vitro reports, upregulation of angiogenic and osteogenic genes has been reported following clinical insertion of topographically complex Ti implants[23]. The possible effects of implant surface topography on the phenomenon of peri-implant neovascularization in vivo remain unexplored
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
