Cargando…

Microscopic Study of Surface Microtopographic Characteristics of Dental Implants

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the micro topographic characteristics of dental implants submitted to different surface treatments, using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants were divided into 7 groups of 3 specimens each, according to the surface treatment used: g...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sezin, M., Croharé, L., Ibañez, J.C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bentham Open 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892131/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27335615
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874210601610010139
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the micro topographic characteristics of dental implants submitted to different surface treatments, using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants were divided into 7 groups of 3 specimens each, according to the surface treatment used: group 1: Osseotite, BIOMET 3i; group 2: SLA surface, Institut Straumann AG; group 3: Oxalife surface, Tree-Oss implant; group 4: B&W implant surface; group 5: Q-implant surface; group 6: ML implant surface; group 7: RBM surface, Rosterdent implant. The surfaces were examined under SEM (Carl Zeiss FE-SEM-SIGMA). Image Proplus software was used to determine the number and mean diameter of pores per area unit (mm). The data obtained were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney test. A confocal laser microscope (LEXT-OLS4100 Olympus) was used to conduct the comparative study of surface roughness (Ra). Data were analyzed using Tukey's HSD test. RESULTS: The largest average pore diameter calculated in microns was found in group 5 (3.45 µm+/-1.91) while the smallest in group 7 (1.47µm+/-1.29). Significant differences were observed among each one of the groups studied (p<0.05). The largest number of pores/mm(2) was found in group 2 (229343) and the smallest number in group 4 (10937). Group 2 showed significant differences regarding the other groups (p<0.05). The greatest roughness (Ra) was observed in group 2 (0.975µm+/-0.115) and the smallest in group 4 (0.304µm+/-0.063). Group 2 was significantly different from the other groups (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The micro topography observed in the different groups presented dissimilar and specific features, depending on the chemical treatment used for the surfaces..