Cargando…

Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial

The aim of the present study is to compare two different implant surface chemistries of failing dental implants. Sixteen patients (mean age: 52 ± 8.27 with eight females and eight males) and 34 implants were included in the study. Group-I implants consisted of a blasted/etched surface with a final p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guler, Berceste, Uraz, Ahu, Hatipoğlu, Hasan, Yalım, Mehmet
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7923284/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33669886
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14040986
_version_ 1783658876831268864
author Guler, Berceste
Uraz, Ahu
Hatipoğlu, Hasan
Yalım, Mehmet
author_facet Guler, Berceste
Uraz, Ahu
Hatipoğlu, Hasan
Yalım, Mehmet
author_sort Guler, Berceste
collection PubMed
description The aim of the present study is to compare two different implant surface chemistries of failing dental implants. Sixteen patients (mean age: 52 ± 8.27 with eight females and eight males) and 34 implants were included in the study. Group-I implants consisted of a blasted/etched surface with a final process surface, while Group-II implants consisted of the sandblasted acid etching (SLA) method. The chemical surface analysis was performed by the energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) method from coronal, middle, and apical parts of each implant. Titanium (Ti) element values were found to be 20.22 ± 15.7 at.% in Group I and 33.96 ± 13.62 at.% in Group-II in the middle of the dental implants. Aluminum (Al) element values were found to be 0.01 ± 0.002 in Group-I and 0.17 ± 0.28 at.% in Group II in the middle of the dental implants, and statistically significant differences were found between the groups for the Al and Ti elements in the middle of the dental implants (p < 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference for the Ti, Al, O, Ca, Fe, P, and Mg elements in the coronal, middle, and apical parts of the implants in the intragroup evaluation (p < 0.05). It is reported that different parts of the implants affected by peri-implant inflammation show different surface chemistries, from coronal to apical, but there is no difference in the implants with different surfaces.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7923284
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79232842021-03-03 Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial Guler, Berceste Uraz, Ahu Hatipoğlu, Hasan Yalım, Mehmet Materials (Basel) Article The aim of the present study is to compare two different implant surface chemistries of failing dental implants. Sixteen patients (mean age: 52 ± 8.27 with eight females and eight males) and 34 implants were included in the study. Group-I implants consisted of a blasted/etched surface with a final process surface, while Group-II implants consisted of the sandblasted acid etching (SLA) method. The chemical surface analysis was performed by the energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) method from coronal, middle, and apical parts of each implant. Titanium (Ti) element values were found to be 20.22 ± 15.7 at.% in Group I and 33.96 ± 13.62 at.% in Group-II in the middle of the dental implants. Aluminum (Al) element values were found to be 0.01 ± 0.002 in Group-I and 0.17 ± 0.28 at.% in Group II in the middle of the dental implants, and statistically significant differences were found between the groups for the Al and Ti elements in the middle of the dental implants (p < 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference for the Ti, Al, O, Ca, Fe, P, and Mg elements in the coronal, middle, and apical parts of the implants in the intragroup evaluation (p < 0.05). It is reported that different parts of the implants affected by peri-implant inflammation show different surface chemistries, from coronal to apical, but there is no difference in the implants with different surfaces. MDPI 2021-02-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7923284/ /pubmed/33669886 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14040986 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Guler, Berceste
Uraz, Ahu
Hatipoğlu, Hasan
Yalım, Mehmet
Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial
title Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial
title_full Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial
title_fullStr Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial
title_short Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial
title_sort chemical evaluation of energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy analysis of different failing dental implant surfaces: a comparative clinical trial
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7923284/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33669886
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14040986
work_keys_str_mv AT gulerberceste chemicalevaluationofenergydispersivexrayspectroscopyanalysisofdifferentfailingdentalimplantsurfacesacomparativeclinicaltrial
AT urazahu chemicalevaluationofenergydispersivexrayspectroscopyanalysisofdifferentfailingdentalimplantsurfacesacomparativeclinicaltrial
AT hatipogluhasan chemicalevaluationofenergydispersivexrayspectroscopyanalysisofdifferentfailingdentalimplantsurfacesacomparativeclinicaltrial
AT yalımmehmet chemicalevaluationofenergydispersivexrayspectroscopyanalysisofdifferentfailingdentalimplantsurfacesacomparativeclinicaltrial