Cargando…
The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness pattern
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 µm showed...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru da Universidade de São
Paulo
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881788/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23138742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572012000500010 |
_version_ | 1782298264275517440 |
---|---|
author | ROSA, Marcio Borges ALBREKTSSON, Tomas FRANCISCHONE, Carlos Eduardo SCHWARTZ FILHO, Humberto Osvaldo WENNERBERG, Ann |
author_facet | ROSA, Marcio Borges ALBREKTSSON, Tomas FRANCISCHONE, Carlos Eduardo SCHWARTZ FILHO, Humberto Osvaldo WENNERBERG, Ann |
author_sort | ROSA, Marcio Borges |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 µm 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 µm; Titaniumfix reached 0.90 µm; implants from Neodent 0.67 µm, and Biomet 3i of Brazil 0.53 µm. 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3881788 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru da Universidade de São
Paulo |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-38817882014-01-08 The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness pattern ROSA, Marcio Borges ALBREKTSSON, Tomas FRANCISCHONE, Carlos Eduardo SCHWARTZ FILHO, Humberto Osvaldo WENNERBERG, Ann J Appl Oral Sci Original Articles 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 µm 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 µm; Titaniumfix reached 0.90 µm; implants from Neodent 0.67 µm, and Biomet 3i of Brazil 0.53 µm. 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. Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru da Universidade de São Paulo 2012 /pmc/articles/PMC3881788/ /pubmed/23138742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572012000500010 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles ROSA, Marcio Borges ALBREKTSSON, Tomas FRANCISCHONE, Carlos Eduardo SCHWARTZ FILHO, Humberto Osvaldo WENNERBERG, Ann The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness pattern |
title | The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness
pattern |
title_full | The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness
pattern |
title_fullStr | The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness
pattern |
title_full_unstemmed | The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness
pattern |
title_short | The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness
pattern |
title_sort | influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness
pattern |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881788/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23138742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572012000500010 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rosamarcioborges theinfluenceofsurfacetreatmentontheimplantroughnesspattern AT albrektssontomas theinfluenceofsurfacetreatmentontheimplantroughnesspattern AT francischonecarloseduardo theinfluenceofsurfacetreatmentontheimplantroughnesspattern AT schwartzfilhohumbertoosvaldo theinfluenceofsurfacetreatmentontheimplantroughnesspattern AT wennerbergann theinfluenceofsurfacetreatmentontheimplantroughnesspattern AT rosamarcioborges influenceofsurfacetreatmentontheimplantroughnesspattern AT albrektssontomas influenceofsurfacetreatmentontheimplantroughnesspattern AT francischonecarloseduardo influenceofsurfacetreatmentontheimplantroughnesspattern AT schwartzfilhohumbertoosvaldo influenceofsurfacetreatmentontheimplantroughnesspattern AT wennerbergann influenceofsurfacetreatmentontheimplantroughnesspattern |