Cargando…

Comparison of surface aspects of turned and anodized titanium dental implant, or abutment material for an optimal soft tissue integration

OBJECTIVES: Soft tissue integration of dental implants lags behind natural biological integration of teeth mainly because of non-optimal surface features. Peri-implant infections resulting in loss of supporting bone jeopardize the success of implants. Our aim was to compare an anodized surface desig...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mühl, Attila, Szabó, Péter, Krafcsik, Olga, Aigner, Zoltán, Kopniczky, Judit, Ákos Nagy, Marada, Gyula, Turzó, Kinga
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9420512/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36042714
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10263
_version_ 1784777407560941568
author Mühl, Attila
Szabó, Péter
Krafcsik, Olga
Aigner, Zoltán
Kopniczky, Judit
Ákos Nagy
Marada, Gyula
Turzó, Kinga
author_facet Mühl, Attila
Szabó, Péter
Krafcsik, Olga
Aigner, Zoltán
Kopniczky, Judit
Ákos Nagy
Marada, Gyula
Turzó, Kinga
author_sort Mühl, Attila
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Soft tissue integration of dental implants lags behind natural biological integration of teeth mainly because of non-optimal surface features. Peri-implant infections resulting in loss of supporting bone jeopardize the success of implants. Our aim was to compare an anodized surface design with a turned one for a more optimal surface. METHODS: Morphological and chemical structures of turned and anodized Ti surfaces (grade 5: Ti6Al4V) discs were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM-EDS), energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), and atomic force microscopy (AFM). The hydrophilic or hydrophobic features of the surfaces were determined by dynamic contact angle measurement. RESULTS: SEM and AFM revealed significant differences in the morphology and roughness (R(a)) of the samples. Anodized discs presented a granular structure, while turned ones had circular grooves. The roughness was significantly higher for the anodized samples compared to the turned ones. XPS and EDS confirmed typical elements for both Ti6Al4V samples. Due to anodization, the amount of Ti (IV) had increased and Ti (III) had decreased in the thicker oxide layer. Anodized samples resulted in a more hydrophilic surface than the turned ones. SIGNIFICANCE: The results suggest that the tested anodized samples present optimal surface characteristics to be used as abutment material for an optimal soft tissue integration.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9420512
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94205122022-08-29 Comparison of surface aspects of turned and anodized titanium dental implant, or abutment material for an optimal soft tissue integration Mühl, Attila Szabó, Péter Krafcsik, Olga Aigner, Zoltán Kopniczky, Judit Ákos Nagy Marada, Gyula Turzó, Kinga Heliyon Research Article OBJECTIVES: Soft tissue integration of dental implants lags behind natural biological integration of teeth mainly because of non-optimal surface features. Peri-implant infections resulting in loss of supporting bone jeopardize the success of implants. Our aim was to compare an anodized surface design with a turned one for a more optimal surface. METHODS: Morphological and chemical structures of turned and anodized Ti surfaces (grade 5: Ti6Al4V) discs were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM-EDS), energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), and atomic force microscopy (AFM). The hydrophilic or hydrophobic features of the surfaces were determined by dynamic contact angle measurement. RESULTS: SEM and AFM revealed significant differences in the morphology and roughness (R(a)) of the samples. Anodized discs presented a granular structure, while turned ones had circular grooves. The roughness was significantly higher for the anodized samples compared to the turned ones. XPS and EDS confirmed typical elements for both Ti6Al4V samples. Due to anodization, the amount of Ti (IV) had increased and Ti (III) had decreased in the thicker oxide layer. Anodized samples resulted in a more hydrophilic surface than the turned ones. SIGNIFICANCE: The results suggest that the tested anodized samples present optimal surface characteristics to be used as abutment material for an optimal soft tissue integration. Elsevier 2022-08-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9420512/ /pubmed/36042714 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10263 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research Article
Mühl, Attila
Szabó, Péter
Krafcsik, Olga
Aigner, Zoltán
Kopniczky, Judit
Ákos Nagy
Marada, Gyula
Turzó, Kinga
Comparison of surface aspects of turned and anodized titanium dental implant, or abutment material for an optimal soft tissue integration
title Comparison of surface aspects of turned and anodized titanium dental implant, or abutment material for an optimal soft tissue integration
title_full Comparison of surface aspects of turned and anodized titanium dental implant, or abutment material for an optimal soft tissue integration
title_fullStr Comparison of surface aspects of turned and anodized titanium dental implant, or abutment material for an optimal soft tissue integration
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of surface aspects of turned and anodized titanium dental implant, or abutment material for an optimal soft tissue integration
title_short Comparison of surface aspects of turned and anodized titanium dental implant, or abutment material for an optimal soft tissue integration
title_sort comparison of surface aspects of turned and anodized titanium dental implant, or abutment material for an optimal soft tissue integration
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9420512/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36042714
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10263
work_keys_str_mv AT muhlattila comparisonofsurfaceaspectsofturnedandanodizedtitaniumdentalimplantorabutmentmaterialforanoptimalsofttissueintegration
AT szabopeter comparisonofsurfaceaspectsofturnedandanodizedtitaniumdentalimplantorabutmentmaterialforanoptimalsofttissueintegration
AT krafcsikolga comparisonofsurfaceaspectsofturnedandanodizedtitaniumdentalimplantorabutmentmaterialforanoptimalsofttissueintegration
AT aignerzoltan comparisonofsurfaceaspectsofturnedandanodizedtitaniumdentalimplantorabutmentmaterialforanoptimalsofttissueintegration
AT kopniczkyjudit comparisonofsurfaceaspectsofturnedandanodizedtitaniumdentalimplantorabutmentmaterialforanoptimalsofttissueintegration
AT akosnagy comparisonofsurfaceaspectsofturnedandanodizedtitaniumdentalimplantorabutmentmaterialforanoptimalsofttissueintegration
AT maradagyula comparisonofsurfaceaspectsofturnedandanodizedtitaniumdentalimplantorabutmentmaterialforanoptimalsofttissueintegration
AT turzokinga comparisonofsurfaceaspectsofturnedandanodizedtitaniumdentalimplantorabutmentmaterialforanoptimalsofttissueintegration