To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

The influence of surface … - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
Sitemap
To content Read more about how we use cookies on gu.se

The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness pattern

Journal article
Authors M. B. Rosa
Tomas Albrektsson
C. E. Francischone
H. O. Schwartz
A. Wennerberg
Published in Journal of Applied Oral Science
Volume 20
Issue 5
Pages 550-555
ISSN 1678-7757
Publication year 2012
Published at Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Biomaterials
Pages 550-555
Language en
Links dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-7757201200...
Keywords Surface treatments, Blasting, Acid etched, Dental implants, Osseointegration, dental implants, removal torque, titanium implants, oral implants
Subject categories Biomaterials Science

Abstract

An important parameter for the clinical success of dental implants is the formation of direct contact between the implant and surrounding bone, whose quality is directly influenced by the implant surface roughness. A screw-shaped design and a surface with an average roughness of Sa of 1-2 mu m showed a better result. The combination of blasting and etching has been a commonly used surface treatment technique. The versatility of this type of treatment allows for a wide variation in the procedures in order to obtain the desired roughness. Objectives: To compare the roughness values and morphological characteristics of 04 brands of implants, using the same type of surface treatment. In addition, to compare the results among brands, in order to assess whether the type of treatment determines the values and the characteristics of implant surface roughness. Material and methods: Three implants were purchased directly from each selected company in the market, i.e., 03 Brazilian companies (Biomet 3i of Brazil, Neodent and Titaniumfix) and 01 Korean company (Oneplant). The quantitative or numerical characterization of the roughness was performed using an interferometer. The qualitative analysis of the surface topography obtained with the treatment was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy images. Results: The evaluated implants showed a significant variation in roughness values: Sa for Oneplant was 1.01 mu m; Titaniumfix reached 0.90 mu m; implants from Neodent 0.67 mu m, and Biomet 3i of Brazil 0.53 mu m. Moreover, the SEM images showed very different patterns for the surfaces examined. Conclusions: The surface treatment alone is not able to determine the roughness values and characteristics.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012
Share:

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?