PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate topographically and compositionally the rough surface of 3 different commercial titanium dental implants. MATERIALS: Bio Com Standard, Osseotite Implant, and Fixture MT Osseospeed were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy, and energy dispersive spectroscopy. RESULTS: The scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy analyses showed that the rough surface of Bio Com Standard presents numerous impressions superimposed by sharp pits, of Osseotite Implant many discrete sharp pits, and of Fixture MT Osseospeed a mixed feature appearance. The energy dispersive spectroscopy analysis of the rough implant surfaces revealed a small trace of Si found on the surface of Osseotite Implant. Fixture MT Osseospeed showed a nonhomogeneous distribution of the detected elements. CONCLUSION: The examined implants had a different rough surface topography, which was directly dependent on the type of treatment used. The differences concerning the surface morphology were leading in a characteristic nanotopography, which might influence the biologic activities at the implant-tissue interface. Surface oxygen concentrations also indicated differences in the oxide layer width between the examined implants, being minimal in Osseotite Implant and maximal in Fixture MT Osseospeed.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate topographically and compositionally the rough surface of 3 different commercial titanium dental implants. MATERIALS: Bio Com Standard, Osseotite Implant, and Fixture MT Osseospeed were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy, and energy dispersive spectroscopy. RESULTS: The scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy analyses showed that the rough surface of Bio Com Standard presents numerous impressions superimposed by sharp pits, of Osseotite Implant many discrete sharp pits, and of Fixture MT Osseospeed a mixed feature appearance. The energy dispersive spectroscopy analysis of the rough implant surfaces revealed a small trace of Si found on the surface of Osseotite Implant. Fixture MT Osseospeed showed a nonhomogeneous distribution of the detected elements. CONCLUSION: The examined implants had a different rough surface topography, which was directly dependent on the type of treatment used. The differences concerning the surface morphology were leading in a characteristic nanotopography, which might influence the biologic activities at the implant-tissue interface. Surface oxygen concentrations also indicated differences in the oxide layer width between the examined implants, being minimal in Osseotite Implant and maximal in Fixture MT Osseospeed.