The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness pattern

被引:64
|
作者
Rosa, Marcio Borges [1 ]
Albrektsson, Tomas [2 ]
Francischone, Carlos Eduardo [1 ]
Schwartz Filho, Humberto Osvaldo [3 ]
Wennerberg, Ann [4 ]
机构
[1] Sao Leopoldo Mandic Univ, Sch Dent, Dept Postgrad, Div Implantol, Campinas, SP, Brazil
[2] Gothenburg Univ, Dept Biomat, Gothenburg, Sweden
[3] Univ Santo Amaro UNISA, Sch Dent, Div Implantol, Dept Postgrad, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[4] Malmo Univ, Dept Prosthodont, Malmo, Sweden
关键词
Surface treatments; Blasting; Acid etched; Dental implants; Osseointegration; TITANIUM IMPLANTS; REMOVAL TORQUE; PART; BONE; TOPOGRAPHY; OSSEOINTEGRATION; KNOWLEDGE;
D O I
10.1590/S1678-77572012000500010
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:550 / 555
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Influence of a zirconia sandblasting treated surface on peri-implant bone healing: An experimental study in sheep
    Bacchelli, Beatrice
    Giavaresi, Gianluca
    Franchi, Marco
    Martini, Desiree
    De Pasquale, Viviana
    Trire, Alessandra
    Fini, Milena
    Giardino, Roberto
    Ruggeri, Alessandro
    ACTA BIOMATERIALIA, 2009, 5 (06) : 2246 - 2257
  • [32] Developments in Dental Implant Surface Modification
    Losiewicz, Bozena
    Osak, Patrycja
    Nowinska, Delfina
    Maszybrocka, Joanna
    COATINGS, 2025, 15 (01):
  • [33] Influence of Screw Surface Treatment on Retention of Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Dentures
    de Moura, Marcos Boaventura
    Rodrigues, Renata Borges
    Pinto, Leandro Moreira
    de Araujo, Cleudmar Amaral
    Novais, Veridiana Resende
    Simamoto Junior, Paulo Cezar
    JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2017, 43 (04) : 254 - 260
  • [34] Osseointegration of a New, Ultrahydrophilic and Nanostructured Dental Implant Surface: A Comparative In Vivo Study
    Pabst, Andreas
    Asran, Ashraf
    Lueers, Steffen
    Laub, Markus
    Holfeld, Christopher
    Palarie, Victor
    Thiem, Daniel G. E.
    Becker, Philipp
    Hartmann, Amely
    Heimes, Diana
    Al-Nawas, Bilal
    Kaemmerer, Peer W.
    BIOMEDICINES, 2022, 10 (05)
  • [35] Biofunctionalization of the implant surface with different concentrations of a synthetic peptide (P-15)
    Lutz, R.
    Prechtl, C.
    Nonhoff, J.
    Weisel, T.
    Damien, C. J.
    Schlegel, K. A.
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2013, 24 (07) : 781 - 786
  • [36] Relative influence of surface topography and surface chemistry on cell response to bone implant materials. Part 1: Physico-chemical effects
    Ponche, A.
    Bigerelle, M.
    Anselme, K.
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS PART H-JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE, 2010, 224 (H12) : 1471 - 1486
  • [37] Effect of implant surface roughness and loading on peri-implant bone formation
    Vandamme, Katleen
    Naert, Ignace
    Sloten, Jozef Vander
    Puers, Robert
    Duyck, Joke
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 2008, 79 (01) : 150 - 157
  • [38] In vivo surface roughness evolution of a stressed metallic implant
    Tan, Henry
    JOURNAL OF THE MECHANICS AND PHYSICS OF SOLIDS, 2016, 95 : 430 - 440
  • [39] Positive Biomechanical Effects of Titanium Oxide for Sandblasting Implant Surface as an Alternative to Aluminium Oxide
    Alexandre Gehrke, Sergio
    Taschieri, Silvio
    Del Fabbro, Massimo
    Coelho, Paulo Guilherme
    JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2015, 41 (05) : 515 - 522
  • [40] Implant Surface Morphology and Primary Stability: Is There a Connection?
    Javed, Fawad
    Almas, Khalid
    Crespi, Roberto
    Romanos, George E.
    IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2011, 20 (01) : 40 - 46