Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 26, 2026

In Vitro Evaluation of The Effects Of Er,Cr:YSGG and Diode Lasers Used on Titanium Cylinder
Published on: June 6, 2025
Microgrooves and Microrugosities in Titanium Implant Surfaces: An In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation
Sergio Alexandre Gehrke1,2, José Henrique Cavalcanti de Lima3, Fernando Rodriguez4,5
1Department of Research, Biotecnos, Cuareim 1483, Montevideo CP 11100, Uruguay. sergio.gehrke@hotmail.com.
Abstract:
The physical characteristics of an implant surface can determine and/or facilitate osseointegration processes. In this sense, a new implant surface with microgrooves associated with plus double acid treatment to generate roughness was evaluated and compared in vitro and in vivo with a non-treated (smooth) and double acid surface treatment. Thirty disks and thirty-six conical implants manufactured from commercially pure titanium (grade IV) were prepared for this study. Three groups were determined, as described below: Group 1 (G1), where the samples were only machined; group 2 (G2), where the samples were machined and had their surface treated to generate roughness; and test group 3 (G3), where the samples were machined with microgrooves and the surface was treated to generate the roughness. For the in vitro analysis, the samples were submitted to scanning microscopy (SEM), surface profilometry, the atomic force microscope (MFA) and the surface energy test. For the in vivo analyses, thirty-six implants were placed in the tibia of 9 New Zealand rabbits in a randomized manner, after histological and histomorphometric analysis, to determine the level of contact between the bone and implant (BIC%) and the bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO%) inside of the threads. The data collected were statistically analyzed between groups (p < 0.05). The in vitro evaluations showed different roughness patterns between the groups, and the G3 group had the highest values. In vivo evaluations of the BIC% showed 50.45 ± 9.57% for the G1 group, 55.32 ± 10.31% for the G2 group and 68.65 ± 9.98% for the G3 group, with significant statistical difference between the groups (p < 0.0001). In the BAFO% values, the G1 group presented 54.97 ± 9.56%, the G2 group 59.09 ± 10.13% and the G3 group 70.12 ± 11.07%, with statistical difference between the groups (p < 0.001). The results obtained in the evaluations show that the surface with microgrooves stimulates the process of osseointegration, accelerating the healing process, increasing the contact between the bone and the implant and the area of new bone formation.
More Related Videos
03:10Pilot In Vitro Study to Assess Cleaning Ability and Effects of Different Decontamination Methods on Implant Surfaces
Published on: November 21, 2025
07:28Imaging Cell Viability on Non-transparent Scaffolds — Using the Example of a Novel Knitted Titanium Implant
Published on: September 7, 2016
Related Concept Videos
Equivalence: In Vitro and In Vivo Bioequivalence
Drug Product Performance: In Vitro–In Vivo Correlation
Surface Tension and Surface Energy
Consider a beaker filled with liquid. The bulk molecules in the liquid experience equal attractive forces on all sides with the surrounding molecules. However, the surface molecules experience a net attractive force downward due to the bulk molecules. The surface of the liquid behaves like a stretched membrane,...
Wood Surfacing
The equipment used in the surfacing process is a plane equipped with rotating blades. This tool efficiently smoothens the wood surface and can...
In-vitro Mutagenesis
Cell-surface Signaling