ATEKNEA
NANOTI
Development of a titanium dental implant with
superior antibacterial properties
Kick-off meeting minutes
12-13/03/2014
CONFIDENTIAL
Contract Nº:
606624
Minutes of the Kick-off meeting
Subject:
12-13 of March
(ATEKNEA)
Document Type:
Confidential
2014,
Budapest,
Only for members of the consortium
Prepared By:
ATEKNEA, Hungary – Project coordinator
Hungary
Prepared by:
Technical coordinator of the project:
Company
Acronym
Responsible Person
ATEKNEA,
HUN
Balazs Ring
Name: Balazs Ring
Organization: ATEKNEA Solutions Hungary LLC.
Phone: +36 1 787 4024 x 338
Fax: +36 1 787 4390
Email: balazs.ring@ateknea.com
Project website: www.nanoti.eu
Document History:
Issue Date
Version
18.03.14
v0.1
25.03.14
V1
Changes / Reasons of Issue
Made by
First Draft
Balazs Ring
Final
Copyright
© Copyright 2014 NANOTI Consortium
This document has been produced within the scope of the NANOTI Project and is confidential to the participants of the project. The
utilization and release of this document is subject to the conditions of the contract within the 7th Framework Programme, grant
agreement no. 606624.
Contents
1
Meeting Modalities ............................................................................................................................... 3
2
Attendees .............................................................................................................................................. 3
3
Agenda .................................................................................................................................................. 4
4
Minutes ................................................................................................................................................. 5
4.1
Welcome by the Coordinator ........................................................................................................ 5
4.2
Technical session for the RTD partners ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3
SMEs join to the meeting ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4
Non-technnical tasks ..................................................................................................................... 7
4.5
Wrap-up session ............................................................................................................................ 9
1 Meeting Modalities
The Kick-off meeting was hosted by ATEKNEA in Budapest, Hungary (H-1119 Budapest, Tétényi u. 93.).
Some of the partners joined via Skype conference.
2 Attendees
NANOTI
Grant Agreement No 606624
Started: 2014-02-01
Duration: 24 months
Status: On-going project
Contact: nanoti@ateknea.hu
The project supported by:
Venue: meeting
Name
Organisation
Role
Initials
1
Miklós Budai
ATEKNEA Solutions
RTD
MB
2
Attila Ágoston
ATEKNEA Solutions
RTD
AA
3
Patrícia Mérei
ATEKNEA Solutions
RTD
PM
4
Orsolya Korda
ATEKNEA Solutions
RTD
OK
5
Balázs Ring
ATEKNEA Solutions
RTD
BR
6
Attila Wootsch
ATEKNEA Solutions
RTD
AW
7
Miklós Weszl
ITM Hungary Kft.
SME
MW
8
Krisztián Tóth
ITM Hungary Kft.
SME
KT
ProTIP SAS
SME
EV
TU Dresden
RTD
DS
TU Dresden
RTD
CW
9
10
11
Nihal Engin Vrana
(skype)
Dieter Scharnweber
(skype)
Cornelia WolfBrandstetter (skype)
12
Eszter Bognár
BME
RTD
EB
13
Attila Terdik
BME
RTD
AT
14
Péter Nagy
BME
RTD
PN
Apologized:
Zoltan Rakonczay- USZ
Renata Giliene - MEDGRUPE
3 Agenda
Wednesday 12th of March 2014 – Technical Meeting
14:00 – 14:30
Welcome by the Coordinator
 Short overview of the Project
14:30 – 16:30
Project overview
 Present the Technical objectives, Workplan and Milestones
 Technical discussion and brainstorming
 System Specification
 Opened questions and risks
Thursday 13th of March 2014 – General Kick-off Meeting
9:30 – 9:45
Welcome by the coordinator


Short overview of the project,
General objectives
9:45 – 10:45
Introduction of partners
10:45 – 11:00
Coffee break
11:00 – 11:30
Project overview
11:30 – 12:30
 Present Technical objectives, Workplan, Milestones and Deliverables,
 Role of partners
Financial and administrative matters
12:30 – 13:15



Lunch
13:15 – 14:15
Discussion of next meetings, exploitation, dissemination and IPR issues,



Introduction to the Research for the benefit of SMEs scheme,
Grant Agreement, Consortium Agreement,
Financial matters (reporting, cost justification)
Exploitation, dissemination possibilities (all partners each),
Exploitation Manager’s tasks,
IPR protection
14:15 – 14:30
Coffee break
14:30 – 15:30
Overview of next steps
 Excerpt from the Technical Meeting,
 General tasks for the next 6 months,
 Detailed discussion of the tasks for the first 3 months
Closing of Meeting
 Remind the next 3 months to DO and the urgent deliverables
15:30 – 15:45
4 Minutes (12th March)
4.1 Welcome by the Coordinator
BR: Welcome speech and agenda introduction
4.2 Project Status update
The project started on the 1st of February.
Unfotunately,AVINENT decided to withdraw from the project. The new partner to take over
AVINENT’s role called ProTIP SAS. It’s a French company situated in Strassburg having business
activity in titanium based medical implant development.
The new company is already validated and the DoW modification has been accepted by the Officer.
4.3 Project Overview and discussion
4.3.1 General overview
BR introduced the problems with current dental implants and the Nanoti solution for them. He made a
short overview of the consortium, and of the overall work plan.
4.3.2 Technical objectives, Workplan and Milestones
BR gave a short overview on the technical objectives, the work packages, the gantt chart and the
milestones of the project.
4.3.3 Technical discussion on the system specification
Implant geometry for the studies
Questions and Answers
EB: What geometry should we use for technology development? Disk-like geometry was planned for invitro studies and mini screw-like implants were planned for in vivo studies. (Cell adhesion and
proliferation tests should be perfomed on flat surface)
KT: ITM would prefer implant geometries from the very beginning. Scientific reasons will be
introduced by WM tomorrow.
DS: For in-vitro experiments flat surface is required in order to have quantitative results
EV: ProTIP can also provide some trachea implants for studies
EB: What type of Ti do you use?
EV: Grade 2
Chemicals, Technology parameters, hardware
Questions and Answers
BR: ITM proposed bubbling as an alternative to magnetic stirring for agitation
PN: It’s very unuseful as bubbles can stick to the implant surface producing uneven nanosurface
BR: Other proposal was to apply some heat treatment
EB: It might be useful, but requires special equipment that can maintain inert atmosphere inside the heat
chamber. However, it probably has the same effect as electropolishing.
BR: How about adding additional tanks to the system for cleaning, rinsing?
EB: That would be useful.
BR: Considering the implant holder, how would it work?
PN: It is based on aPTFE holder plate, implants are fixed with cylindrical rods made of PTFE as well.
Electrical connections are done with a wire inside the cylindrical rod that contacts the inner surface of
the implant.
BR: How about placing the implant in 3D (multiple layers, keeping the same distance from each other)
PN: We’ve also thought about that. It could be useful, as more even heat distribution could be achieved.
It will be investigated
Other issues
ProTIP asked for a modification of the agenda for the second day. Detailed project overview has been
moved to the morning session, financial and administrative issues have been moved to the afternoon
session.
5 Minutes (13th March)
5.1 Welcome by the Coordinator
5.2 Introduction of the partners
Company presentation of ITM Hungary Kft. by Miklós Weszl
Company presentation of ProTIP SAS by Engin Vrana
Introductory presentation of TU Dresden by Dieter Scharnweber
Introductory presentation of BME by Attila Terdik
Company presentation of ATEKNEA Solutions Hungary by Attila Wootsch
As MEDGRUPE and USZ couldn’t join the meeting BR is giving a short overview of them to the
partners.
5.3 Project Overview
BR presented the business, scientific and technological objectives, and introduced each work package in
detail highlighting the deadlines and the role of partners involved.
5.4 Overview of the next steps
5.4.1 Time schedule for the upcoming meetings
M3 technical meeting.
Proposed date is the 6th of May 2014.
Proposed location: Budapest, Hungary.
Hosted by ITM
TODO: Please check your calendar
M6 General meeting
Proposed date: first week of July.
Proposed location: Budapest, Hungary.
Hosted by BME
TODO: Proposed dates will be sent by Coordinator, please check your calendar
Deliverables
BR: Please send all deliverables to the coordinator first preferably two weeks before the final deadline.
Coordinator will send it to all partners, they should send their comments within a week. Comments and
suggestions will be implemented by the Coordinator and he or she will submit it.
5.4.2 General tasks for the next 6 month
BR introduced the upcoming tasks and deliverables for the next 6 months
5.4.3 Detailed discussion of the tasks for the first 3 months
BR gave a detailed overview of the upcoming tasks and deliverables for the next 3 months with internal
deadlines and responsibilities.
5.4.4 Excerpt from the Technical Meeting & Discussion
The main open issues from day 1:






Sample geometries has to be finalized (for in-vitro and in-vivo)
Important to have both quantitative and qualitative results
TUD: in-vitro experiments performed in 3 phases
 Bacterial adhesion, cell adhesion and proliferation should be performed on flat surfaces
to obtain quantitative results
In- vivo experiment: what model to use (rat, pig, dog)
Two types of implants: soft tissue and bone level implant
Skype meeting on system specification between 21-27th March
Questions and Answers
Sample geometry
Partners discussed the possible sample geometry used for in vitro and in-vivo experiments. TUD prefers
disc-shape geometries as it provides reliable results for bacterial adhesion experiments, cell adhesion and
proliferation studies. ProTIP noted that they could also provide samples.
ITM highlighted that from the manufacturers’ point of view it was important to have results that
correlate to real life applications, and they were interested in results gained with real implant geometries.
Additionally, they noted that the same technology never provided the same results on flat and curled
surfaces. BME was fine with either solution, but they would like to know the final decision in order to
be able to start working as soon as possible.
ITM noted that not much effort should be spent on MSCs studies, rather the attachment of epithelial
cells from gingiva should be investigated. Also they would like to incorporate some sort of comparison
study (using models from different implant manufacturers) into the experiments. State-of-the-art is Agdoped (silver leaching) implants, ITM would like to compare Nanoti’s performance with it.
TUD disagreed with comparative study, as the results wouldn’t be accepted by the scientific community
since it didn’t made by third party group. BME proposed to start with flat surface for technology
optimization and after that go for implant geometry. Protip agreed.
ITM performed a throughout literature search recently, based on the findings they were on a position
that there’s no need for extensive in-vitro studies and the study of different surface topography as they
had found the key parameters that had to be achieved : polycationic surface. BME stressed that targeting
an exact surface specification could impose higher risk, but on the other hand, it was easier for them to
develop a pre-specified topography.
Considering the biological experiments, Protip highlighted that differentiation studies were also
important. ITM underlined that the specified surface topography should be achieved first by BME, and
biological studies had to be performed on the final surface.
TUD pointed out that homogenous sample surfaces will be required for quantitative biological analyses.
Due to time limitation, partners agreed to continue the discussion on the open questions of
biological studies via SKYPE in the following week.
5.5 Financial and administrative matters
OK introduced the Research for the benefit of the SMEs scheme, she gave a detailed presentation about
the grant agreement and the consortium agreement and highlighted the most important financial issues.
OK noted that NobelBiacore showed some interest in the project, partners agreed to keep them updated.
TUD noted that they are fine with the CA, and they asked about the expected arrival of pre-financing.
OK explanained the procedure of transferring the prefinancing highlighting that it can be started as soon
as everybody signed the CA.
5.6 Discussion of next meetings, exploitation, dissemination and IPR issues
OK gave a detailed presentation about exploitation and dissemination highlighting the tasks of the
exploitation manager (ITM). Later IPR related issues were discussed. OK stressed that PUDF was a
highly important document and cooperation was needed from all partners.
Newsletter should be put together as soon as possible for the companies that showed interest in the
project
5.7 Wrap-up session
Next meeting 6th May, Budapest
Actions required:
What
Sample geometries has to be finalized (for in-vitro and in-vivo)
Important to have both quantitative and qualitative results
Who
BME,
TUD,
ITM
TUD, ITM
When
March
Finalization of the system spec. & submit the D1.1 and D1.1
ALL
March
Sample preparation and documentation
Website
Preparation of mechanical units for the laboratory setup
BME
April
ATEKNEA April
BME
May
Decision on animal model
Skype meeting on system specification between 21-27th March
June