Journal of Mechanical Engineering

Analysis of the Fabrication Results of Porous Materials and

Hybrid Porous Dental Implants Ti-6Al-4V Using Metal
Injection Molding (MIM)

Journal: Journal of Mechanical Engineering

Manuscript ID JMECHE-2022-0161
Fo
Manuscript Type: Original Article

Dental Implant, Porous Titanium, Hybrid Porous Dental Implant, Porous,

Keywords:
Metal Injection Molding, Shear Bond Strength
rR
ev
iew
On
ly

https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/jmeche
Page 1 of 11 Journal of Mechanical Engineering

1
2
3 Analysis of Porous Material Fabrication Results and
4
5 Hybrid Porous Dental Implant Ti-6Al-4V Using Metal
6
7
Injection Molding (MIM)
8
9
10
Abstract
11
12 A dental implant is a biomaterial device implanted in the jawbone surgically in place of a missing tooth. The
13 surface topography of dental implants with the surface roughness and porous coating of Ti-6Al-4V material is
14 recommended to improve the osseointegration and induction of new bone tissue growth (bone ingrowth) and reduce the
15 stress shielding effect due to the high young modulus of the implant material. This study presents the manufacture of
16 porous coatings, the development of dental implant designs and the manufacturing process of hybrid porous dental
17
implants through metal injection moulding (MIM). Surface analysis on the merger of the implantable core material with
18
Ti-6Al-4V pivoted material after the sintering process using a temperature of 1150 °C with a holding time of 60 minutes,
19
90 minutes, and 120 minutes in the argon atmosphere with a flow rate of 1liter/minute. The results showed that the
20
sintering resistance time affects the percentage of porosity and hardness of Ti-6Al-4V material. Surface roughness
21
Fo

significantly affects the shear bond strength on the surface. The surface roughness value is high, and the shear bond
22
23 strength will be higher. This study’s stress result was 1.5406 MPa at a surface roughness of Ra of 2.3677 μm. The green
24 part hybrid porous dental implant is successfully made using injection moulding (MIM) with a mould temperature of
180 °C.
rR

25
26 Keywords: Dental Implants, Porous Titanium, Hybrid Porous Dental Implant, Porous, Metal Injection Molding, Shear
27 Bond Strength
28
ev

29
30
A. BACKGROUND
31 A dental implant is an engineered device made of biomaterial implanted in the jawbone
iew

32 through a surgical process to support the implant structure, namely the crown of an artificial
33 tooth to replace the missing tooth [3]. To maintain implant performance, there is the most
34
important indicator, namely implant stability which consists of primary stability (mechanical
35
36 stability), namely the toughness of binding the implant to bones that are in mechanical contacts,
On

37 such as friction, and secondary stability (osseointegration / biological stability) is the result of
38 the growth of new bone cells in the area around the implant so that osseointegration occurs [6].
39
Factors affecting primary stability are the quantity and quality of the jawbone, surgical
40
techniques and the design of dental implants. Meanwhile, secondary stability is influenced by
ly

41
42 bone modelling, dental implants, and loading conditions [8], [9].
43 Failure of dental implants can occur due to inadequate osseointegration and peri-
44 implantitis, which are affected by the patient's condition, such as poor jawbone quality (bone
45
46 density), reduced jawbone volume, crowing effect, bruxism, diseases such as (osteoporosis,
47 diabetes, and so on), the number of natural teeth from the patient, and oral hygiene [10].
48 Therefore, to stimulate the occurrence of osseointegration and prevent peri-implantitis, it is
49 necessary to modify the surface of the dental implant [4], [5]. Modifications to the topography
50
51 of the implant include macroscale modifications that describe the geometric shape of dental
52 implants, micro-scales that describe surface roughness (1 – 100 μm), and nanoscales that
53 describe surface roughness on a nanoscale (1 – 100 nm), which affect cell interactions with
54 implants to stimulate the growth of new bones [4], [5], [7], [11].
55
56
Ti-6Al-4V material has mechanical properties close to the bone: low elasticity modulus,
57 low density, high strength and excellent biocompatibility properties. However, the material
58 properties value of the titanium material used for implants has a higher young modulus so that
59 it can cause a "stress shielding effect". This is because the bones, which are living tissues, are
60

https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/jmeche
 Journal of Mechanical Engineering Page 2 of 11

1
2
3 continuously modified bone cells in response to external behaviour and a decrease in
4
5 mechanical load on the bones due to the stress shielding effect causing bone resorption (bone
6 loss), easing the implant so that failure of dental implants occurs [13]. To overcome the "stress
7 shielding effect" and increase bone-in-growth, namely by using porous implant material
8 (porous) [12], [13].
9
10
Based on research by Ahmed et al. (2021), implants with porous surfaces can stimulate
11 the osseointegration process with an increase in new bone formations that are more than non-
12 porous surfaces [15]. The porosity of porous materials and fully porous implant structures are
13 not recommended for implants due to the deterioration of mechanical properties and load-
14
15
bearing requirements. Therefore, implants with solid nuclei combined with porous material
16 (hybrid porous dental implants) are recommended as dental implants to ensure mechanical
17 properties that meet the loading criteria [17].
18 Hong Ji-Youn et al. (2020) researched a new method of utilising the Metal Injection
19
20
Molding technique to form porous titanium structures made in the apical part of the screw-type
21 implant. The feedstock is a mixture of titanium hydride (TiH2) and binder, which is then
Fo

22 injected into the apical part between the threads in the implant core made using the machining
23 method using grade 4 cp-titanium material. The porous titanium structure made with Metal
24
Injection Molding (MIM) can deliver interconnected three-dimensional porosity on the
rR

25
26 implant’s surface. It will promote the growth of new bones on the surface [18].
27 This study aimed to produce a porous titanium alloy material profile made through a metal
28 injection moulding (MIM) process to develop a hybrid porous dental implant using titanium
ev

29
alloy material as a solid core dental implant. The process parameters are sintering time,
30
31 atmosphere, heating rate, and surface roughness. The sintering process using an argon
iew

32 atmosphere can be studied surface topography related to the microstructure, porosity, hardness
33 value and shear strength of the Ti-6Al-4V material resulting from the metal injection moulding
34 (MIM) process.
35
36
B. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
On

37
38 The material used in this study is Ti-6Al-4V regarding ASTM F136 Grade 5 standard. The
39 manufacture of Ti6Al4V material wrought specimens with dimensions of 5 mm x 5 mm x 3 mm was
40
carried out surface treatment with sanding grit P80, P180, and P600 grit inserted into a cube-shaped
ly

41
42
mould with dimensions of 5 mm x 5 mm x 5 mm then injected Feedstock Ti6Al4V on the surface area
43 using metal injection moulding (MIM). Furthermore, the solvent debinding process was carried out with
44 hexane solution for 3 hours at a temperature of 60 ° C and continued thermal debinding at a temperature
45 of 550 ° C with a heating rate of 5 ° C / minute with a resistance time of 60 minutes using an argon
46 atmosphere. The sintering process uses a temperature of 1150 ° C with an endurance time of 60 minutes,
47 90 minutes, and 120 minutes in an argon atmosphere with a flow rate of 1 litre/minute. The sintering
48 results can be observed and analysed using SEM and EDS tests, metallographic observations, hardness
49
testing, surf com surface roughness testing, and shear bond strength testing.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 Figure 1. 1) Ordinary Dental Implant, 2) Core Dental Implant, 3) Hybrid Porous Dental Implant.
60

https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/jmeche
Page 3 of 11 Journal of Mechanical Engineering

1
2
3 Simulation of static loading on the dental implant shaft was performed using the Fusion
4
5 App 2021. Fabrication of core dental implant using CNC Turning CINCOM A20. Then the
6 core dental implant is cleaned to remove the residual lubricant from the machining process
7 using acetone, IPA, and aquades liquid for 5 minutes. To obtain the surface roughness value of
8 the core dental implant, a sandblasting process was carried out with aluminium oxide F80 with
9
10
a pressure parameter of 0.6 Mpa, a distance of 20 mm, a grit size of 220 μm, a blasting duration
11 of 10 seconds, and rotation variation of 450 / 650 / 750 / 850 / 1000 / 1200 RPM. Roughness value
12 measurement using Surfcom 9000SD3 on top, flank, and valley areas.
13 The injection process simulation was carried out with CAE Solidworks Plastics 2020
14
15
Software with injection pressure parameters of 3 MPa, melt temperature of 200 °C, mould
16 temperature variations of 180 ° C, 190 ° C, 200 ° C, and variations in injection gate locations,
17 namely the top, middle, and bottom. After the simulation process to find the best parameter
18 optimisation, the injection process is carried out to produce green parts.
19
20
21
C. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fo

22 The topographic shape of the surface resulting from the argon sintering process can be
23 observed using SEM And EDS. Figure 13 shows that the wrought surface of the Ti-6Al-4V
24 material is rough because of the surface treatment results. This surface roughness improves the
rR

25
26
bond between the wrought Ti-6Al-4V material and porous material Ti-6Al-4V.
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36 Figure 2. (a) SEM Argon Sintering Wrought Material Ti-6Al-4V Results (b) EDS Argon Sintering Wrought
On

37 Material Ti-6Al-4V Results

38
39
40
ly

41
42
43
44
45
46
47 Figure 3. (a) SEM Argon Sintering Porous Material Ti-6Al-4V Results (b) EDS Argon Sintering Porous
48 Material Ti-6Al-4V Results.
49
50 In the porous surface structure that binds directly to the wrought of the Ti-6Al-4V material,
51 several parts are still deposition by the polymer (binder), so that part has not reached the final
52
stage of sintering as a result of which the surface part of the polymer is difficult to evaporate
53
54 and come out along with the argon gas flow because it binds directly to the wrought Ti-6Al-
55 4V material. In the EDS results, the two materials have no oxygen element because the
56 sintering process uses an argon atmosphere to avoid oxidation in the sample.
57
58
59
60

https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/jmeche
 Journal of Mechanical Engineering Page 4 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Figure 4. (a) Microstructure of Porous Sintering Results of Ti6Al4V Material At 1150°C With Holding Time (a)
12 60 minutes, (b) 90 minutes, and (c) 120 minutes.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Figure 5. (a) Microstructure of Ti6Al4V Material Interface Sintering Results At 1150°C With Holding Time (a)
21 60 minutes, (b) 90 minutes and (c) 120 minutes.
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30 Figure 6. (a) Microstructure of Wrought Sintering Results of Ti6Al4V Material At 1150°C With Holding Time
31 (a) 60 minutes, (b) 90 minutes and (c) 120 minutes.
iew

32
33 The material tends to form equiaxial grains in the porous microstructure, while the
34 microstructure on the Ti6Al4V wrought forms a lamellar structure. There are significant
35
microstructural differences between the porous material and the wrought material. In the
36
interface, coating adhesion is influenced by the polymer contained in the feedstock with the
On

37
38 Ti6Al4V material plate, which has been sanded to increase the surface roughness so that it will
39 increase the adhesion to the two materials.
40
ly

41
42 3,0 Wrought Material Ti-6Al-4V
43 Porous Material Ti-6Al-4V
Percentage of porosity area (%)

44
2,5
45
46
47 2,0

48
49 1,5

50
51 1,0

52
60 70 80 90 100 110 120
53
Holding Time Sintering (Min)
54
55 Figure 7. Effect of Sintering Resistance Time at 1150°C on Percentage of Porosity Area.
56
57 In the graph of the porosity area percentage results, it can be concluded that Ti-6Al-4V
58 porous material has a more significant porosity percentage than Ti6Al4V material wrought so
59 that the mechanical properties of Ti-6Al-4V material wrought are greater than Ti-6Al-4V porous
60

https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/jmeche
Page 5 of 11 Journal of Mechanical Engineering

1
2
3 material. The porosity produced in the Ti-6Al-4V material with variations in the increase in
4
5 sintering resistance time, the higher the sintering resistance time, the porosity form created is
6 spherical. Because with the growth of grains and the expansion in the sintering process's
7 resistance time, the sample's porosity will become round and eventually close. Porosity will
8 experience significant shrinkage when it comes into contact with the α phase. Irregular-shaped
9
10
porosity is usually found in the matrix of the β phase.
440
11 424,242
Holding Time 60 min
Holding Time 90 min
12 420 Holding Time 120 min

13 399,692 399,001
14 Hardness (HV) 400
391,26

15 380
16
373,937
369,489

17 360

18 344,443

19 340 335,85

20 320
323,072

21
Fo

22 Wrought Interface Porous

Speciment
23
24 Figure 8. Effect of Sintering Resistance Time at 1150°C On The Hardness Of Ti-6Al-4V Material.
rR

25
26 At a sintering resistance time of 60 minutes and 90 minutes, the porous material has a lower
27 hardness than the wrought material because the shape of the microstructure produced is different
28
ev

29 in each part, so it will make a significant difference in the hardness of the Ti6Al4V material.
30 However, at a resistance time of 120 minutes, the hardness of the wrought material tends to be
31 smaller than that of the Ti6Al4V porous material. This happens because of the phenomenon of
iew

32 grain growth that increases significantly, and it will reduce the hardness of the Ti6Al4V material.
33
34 The interface of the Ti6Al4V material has a higher hardness than the porous part of the Ti6Al4V
35 material at a sintering resistance time of 60 minutes, 90 minutes and 120 minutes, respectively.
36
On

37
38 2,5 2,3677
Surface Roughness
39
Surface Roughness (μm)

40 2,0
ly

41
42 1,5
43
44 1,014
1,0
45
46 0,5368

47 0,5

48 Grit 80 Grit 180 Grit 600

49 Surface Treatment
50 Figure 9. Surface Roughness on Ti6Al4V material after surface treatment with SiC grit P80, P180, and P600
51 sandpaper.
52
53
54
2.3677 μm obtains the surface roughness value at P80 grit sanding; the higher the
55 determination on the sandpaper, the lower the surface roughness value.
56
57
58
59
60

https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/jmeche
 Journal of Mechanical Engineering Page 6 of 11

1
2
3
1,6 1,5406
4 1,46
Shear Stress

5 1,4

6 1,2

Shear Stress (Mpa)

7 1,0
8
9 0,8

10 0,6

11 0,4 0,3078
12 0,2
13
14 0,0
Grit 80 Grit 180 Grit 600
15 Surface Treatment
16 Figure 10. Shear Bond Strength Test Results.
17
18
19 In Figure 10, the highest shear stress obtained on the surface treatment with grit P80 is 1.5406
20 Mpa; the shear stress result on nerve P180 shows almost the same result as grit P80, but in
21 determination P600 the shear stress result decreases due to the surface roughness value of the
Fo

22 surface treatment result obtaining a low score. Sanding removes contaminants that cause a
23
24 decrease in bonds between surfaces so that the adhesion strength becomes poor and shear stress
rR

25 becomes low. In Figure 22, it can be seen from the contours of the feeling that the two materials
26 tend to glue to the medium edge of the porous material Ti-6Al-4V shrinkage after sintering so
27 that it is difficult to glue with the bottom of the Wrought material Ti-6Al-4V.
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37
38 Figure 11. Ti-6Al-4V material after testing shear bond strength (a) porous (b) wrought.
39
40
The development of combining implant material with porous material is applied to
ly

41
42 manufacture hybrid porous dental implants by adding porous material that fills the thread
43 surface. Simulating the loading of the porous part of the hybrid porous dental implant showed
44 no mechanical failure. This is because the stress value does not exceed the yield strength value
45
of porous material, which is 1,576 Mpa. Ti-6Al-4V material is produced with a porosity
46
47 percentage of 75% of 79.21 Mpa, so it is safe to use in a hybrid porous dental implant system.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/jmeche
Page 7 of 11 Journal of Mechanical Engineering

1
2
3 Figure 12. Simulation Results of Static Loading of Porous Parts.
4
5
The results of the sandblasting core dental implant process in Figure 4. have a dark colour.
6
7 This is due to the remaining oil/lubricant from the machining process so that a carbon oxidation
8 reaction occurs on the surface of the tooth implant exposed to heat during the sandblasting
9 process [19].
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Figure 13. Surface Roughness Measurement Area After Sandblasting and Cleaning Process.
20 1,0
21
Fo

0,89
22 0,81 0,82
0,81
0,84
0,82
0,82
0,8 0,79
23 0,76 0,75
0,78 0,78 0,77 0,76
Surface Roughness (μm)

0,74 0,74 0,75 0,75 0,74

0,71 0,71 0,72 0,72 0,71
24 0,68
rR

25 0,6
0,61

26
27
28
ev

0,4
29
30
0,2
31
iew

32
33 0,0
34 450 650 750 850 1000 1200 Dentium
35 Rotation Speed (RPM) and Benchmark Product
36 Top Flank Valley Average
On

37 Figure 14. Graph of the Effect of Rotational Speed On Roughness Values In Top, Flank, and Valley
38 Areas.
39
40
Rotational speed's effect on surface roughness's value is not very significant. But the most
ly

41
42 excellent surface roughness values are obtained from the rotation speed parameters of 650 and
43 750 RPM. Then using the material removal rate (MRR) formula, which calculates the material
44 release rate per unit time on the workpiece, the most significant MRR value is obtained at a
45
rotational speed of 750 RPM.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55 Figure 15. Injection Simulation Results from Above: a) 180°C, b) 190°C, c) 200°C.
56
57 The injection simulation results from the upper gate show that the recommended injection
58 parameter is a moulding temperature of 200°C. At mould temperatures of 180°C and 190°C,
59
60 the feedstock stream cannot fill the cavity due to a short shot.

https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/jmeche
 Journal of Mechanical Engineering Page 8 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Figure 16. Injection Simulation Results from the Middle: a) 180°C, b) 190°C, c) 200°C.
12
13
14 The injection results from the middle gate showed that the best parameters were obtained
15 at a mould temperature of 190 ° C and 200 ° C because at a mould temperature of 180 ° C the
16 feedstock flow did not fill the cavity and experienced a hardening (a short shot). The injection
17
18
parameter with the location of the middle gate is the best recommendation based on simulation
19 results that show the ability of feedstock to fill the mould with a temperature of no more than
20 200 °C so that these parameters are used in the injection process.
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
Figure 17. Injection simulation results below: a) 180°C, b) 190°C, c) 200°C.
30
31
iew

32 The simulation results show that the injection parameter of the recommended middle gate
33 is a temperature of 200 °C. Because at 180°C and 190°C, the feedstock stream does not fill the
34 cavity because it is subjected to a short shot.
35
36
On

37
38
39
40
ly

41
42
43 Figure 18. Microscopic Examination of Green Part Mold Temperature 180°C.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52 Figure 19. Microscopic Examination of Green Part Mold Temperature 190°C.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/jmeche
Page 9 of 11 Journal of Mechanical Engineering

1
2
3 Figure 20. Microscopic Examination of Green Part Mold Temperature 200°C.
4
5
Based on the injection results at 180°C, 190°C, and 200°C with microscopic observations,
6
7 it shows that the porous material was successfully injected and filled the entire cavity area where
8 the best results were at 180°C. The injection results at 190°C and 200°C contained parts
9 detached from the mould's porous material.
10
11
12 200
202
Design Mass
Injection Simulation Mass
13 After Injection Mass
Filled Porous Percentage (%)
175
14
150
15 127
16 125 120

17 100
100
95
100 100

18 75
19
50
20
21 25
Fo

22 0
180 190 200
23
Mold Temperature (OC)
24
Figure 21. Graph Comparing Porous Design Mass With Green Part Mass
rR

25
26
27 In CAD design, core dental implants have a volume of 124.65 mm³ and green parts of
28 porous materials have a volume of 19.72 mm³. Ti-6Al-4V grade 5 density of 4.43 g/cc (0.00443
ev

29 g/mm³) and green part feedstock density based on datasheet from RYER of 3.0305 g/cc
30
31
(0.0030305 g/mm³). So that the mass of the green part hybrid porous dental implant is obtained
iew

32 by the multiplication between the volume and density of the material, it can be concluded that
33 the enormous injection mass is found at a moulding temperature of 180 °C, which is 202% of
34 the green part design mass.
35
36
D. CONCLUSION
On

37
38 There are several conclusions from this study, including:
39 1. Ti-6Al-4V material from the injection process in metal injection moulding is porous and
40 wrought material that sticks together. After going through the sintering process at a
ly

41
temperature of 1150 °C with a variation in the holding time of 60 minutes, 90 minutes, and
42
43 120 minutes the two materials produce different microstructures, namely in the porous
44 material part produces an equiaxed microstructure shape with α and β phases, while the
45 wrought material produces a microstructure form in the form of lamellar with α and β
46
steps.
47
48 2. By using variations in surface roughness at Ra 2.3677 μm, 1.014 μm, 0.5368 μm to
49 increase the adhesion strength between the wrought of Ti-6Al-4V material and porous
50 material Ti-6Al-4V, shear stress is obtained to increase when the surface of the material
51 gets rougher, namely in sanding with P80 grit.
52
53 3. Sandblasting results using pressure parameters of 0.6 MPa, firing range 20 mm, grit size
54 220 μm (F80), blasting duration 10 seconds with a rotation speed variation of 450 – 1200
55 RPM is recommended parameters obtain surface roughness Ra 0.7179 – 0.8055 μm.
56 4. The location of the gate or injection hole in the middle of the cavity is the recommended
57
58 injection location based on the results of simulations and experiments. The best injection
59 parameters are based on the results of the MIM injection process on green parts in the
60

https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/jmeche
 Journal of Mechanical Engineering Page 10 of 11

1
2
3 manufacture of hybrid porous dental implants, namely with a melt temperature of 200 ° C, a
4
5 moulding temperature of 180 ° C, and an injection pressure of 3.6 MPa.
6
7 REFERENCES
8 [1] K.v. Siagian, "Loss of some teeth in the oral cavity," Journal of e-Clinic (eCl), vol. 4, no. 1, 2016,
9 doi: 10.35790/ecl.4.1.2016.12316.
10
[2] D. Maranha Da Rocha, M. Cerqueira Da Rocha, R. Barbosa-Lima, VN Menezes, F. Alvim-
11
12
Pereira, and AA Melo De Mendonça, “Experience of caries and tooth loss in rural citrus workers
13 in Northeast Brazil Experiência de cárie e perda dentária de trabalhadores rurais da citricultura
14 no Nordeste brasileiro,” J. Health Biol Sci, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2021, doi: 10.12662/2317-
15 3206jhbs.v9i1.3544.p1-5.2021.
16 [3] “The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition,” J Prosthet Dent, vol. 117, no. 5, pp. e1–
17 e105, May 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.12.001.
18 [4] R. Smeets et al., “Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration,” BioMed
19
Research International, vol. 2016. Hindawi Limited, 2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/6285620.
20
21 [5] L. le Guéhennec, A. Soueidan, P. Layrolle, and Y. Amouriq, “Surface treatments of titanium
Fo

22 dental implants for rapid osseointegration,” Dental Materials, vol. 23, no. 7.pp. 844–854, Jul.
23 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.025.
24 [6] “The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition,” J Prosthet Dent, vol. 117, no. 5, pp. e1–
rR

25 e105, May 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.12.001.

26 [7] PG Coelho, R. Jimbo, N. Tovar, and EA Bonfante, “Osseointegration: Hierarchical designing
27
encompassing the macrometer, micrometer, and nanometer length scales,” Dental Materials, vol.
28
ev

29 31, no. 1, pp. 37–52, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.10.007.

30 [8] F. Javed, H. Ahmed, R. Crespi, and G. Romanos, “Role of primary stability for successful
31 osseointegration of dental implants: Factors of influence and evaluation,” Interventional
iew

32 Medicine and Applied Science, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 162–167, Dec. 2013, doi:
33 10.1556/IMAS.5.2013.4.3.
34 [9] M. Akoğlan, U. Tatli, C. Kurtoğlu, F. Salimov, and M. Kürkçü, “Effects of different loading
35
protocols on the secondary stability and peri-implant bone density of the single implants in the
36
posterior maxilla,” Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 624–631,
On

37
38 Aug. 2017, doi: 10.1111/cid.12492.
39 [10] BR Chrcanovic, T. Albrektsson, and A. Wennerberg, “Reasons for failures of oral implants,”
40 Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, vol. 41, no. 6. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 443–476, 2014. doi:
ly

41 10.1111/joor.12157.
42 [11] BR Chrcanovic, T. Albrektsson, and A. Wennerberg, “Reasons for failures of oral implants,”
43
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, vol. 41, no. 6. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 443–476, 2014. doi:
44
45
10.1111/joor.12157.
46 [12] ZJ Wally, W. van Grunsven, F. Claeyssens, R. Goodall, and GC Reilly, “Porous titanium for
47 dental implant applications,” Metals, vol. 5, no. 4. MDPI AG, pp. 1902–1920, Oct. 21, 2015. doi:
48 10.3390/met5041902.
49 [13] BV Krishna, S. Bose, and A. Bandyopadhyay, “Low stiffness porous Ti structures for load-
50 bearing implants,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 997–1006, 2007, doi:
51 10.1016/j.actbio.2007.03.008.
52
[14] JY Hong, SY Ko, W. Lee, YY Chang, SH Kim, and JH Yun, “Enhancement of bone ingrowth
53
54 into a porous titanium structure to improve osseointegration of dental implants: A pilot study in
55 the canine model,” Materials, vol. 13, no. 14, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.3390/ma13143061.
56 [15] A. Ahmed, A. Al-Rasheed, M. Badwelan, and HS Alghamdi, “Peri-Implant bone response around
57 porous-surface dental implants: A preclinical meta-analysis,” Saudi Dental Journal, vol. 33, no.
58 5, pp. 239–247, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.12.006.
59
60

https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/jmeche
Page 11 of 11 Journal of Mechanical Engineering

1
2
3 [16] A. Rodriguez-Contreras, M. Punset, JA Calero, FJ Gil, E. Ruperez, and JM Manero, “Powder
4
metallurgy with space holder for porous titanium implants: A review,” Journal of Materials
5
6
Science and Technology, vol. 76. Chinese Society of Metals, pp. 129–149, Jun. 20, 2021. doi:
7 10.1016/j.jmst.2020.11.005.
8 [17] G. Ryan, A. Pandit, and DP Apatsidis, “Fabrication methods of porous metals for use in
9 orthopedic applications,” Biomaterials, vol. 27, no. 13.pp. 2651–2670, May 2006. doi:
10 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.12.002.
11 [18] JY Hong, SY Ko, W. Lee, YY Chang, SH Kim, and JH Yun, “Enhancement of bone ingrowth
12 into a porous titanium structure to improve osseointegration of dental implants: A pilot study in
13
the canine model,” Materials, vol. 13, no. 14, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.3390/ma13143061.
14
15 [19] AW Yuda, “TITANIUM ALLOY MINI-SCREW IMPLANT DEBURRING WITH FINE
16 ABRASIVE TECHNIQUES,” University of Indonesia, Depok, 2020.
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37
38
39
40
ly

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/jmeche