PURPOSE: To characterize the surface of implants from Brazilian companies by light interferometry and evaluate the level of control of the surface treatment process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oral implants from the five largest Brazilian companies were evaluated topographically. The surfaces of the implants were analyzed on the tops, valleys, and flanks of the threads, totaling nine measurements for each unit. The implants and results were separated in groups by their types of surface treatment and compared with well known international implants used as references. RESULTS: The implants examined presented a mean height deviation of less than 1 μm, which was considered minimally rough, except for the SIN-SW implant (1.01 μm) and the Vulcano Actives design (1.26 μm). The surface enlargement values varied considerably in relation to the reference implant, with lower values noted in the group of implants subjected to sandblasting and acid-etching and with higher values obtained in the group treated by acid-etching and anodizing. There were statistically significant differences between batches of implants from all companies assessed, indicative of a substantial variance in implant topography from one batch to another. CONCLUSIONS: The low values of roughness found in the measurements and the differences between the values of the batches suggest that these companies should consider improving their surface treatments to achieve more uniform roughness.
PURPOSE: To characterize the surface of implants from Brazilian companies by light interferometry and evaluate the level of control of the surface treatment process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oral implants from the five largest Brazilian companies were evaluated topographically. The surfaces of the implants were analyzed on the tops, valleys, and flanks of the threads, totaling nine measurements for each unit. The implants and results were separated in groups by their types of surface treatment and compared with well known international implants used as references. RESULTS: The implants examined presented a mean height deviation of less than 1 μm, which was considered minimally rough, except for the SIN-SW implant (1.01 μm) and the Vulcano Actives design (1.26 μm). The surface enlargement values varied considerably in relation to the reference implant, with lower values noted in the group of implants subjected to sandblasting and acid-etching and with higher values obtained in the group treated by acid-etching and anodizing. There were statistically significant differences between batches of implants from all companies assessed, indicative of a substantial variance in implant topography from one batch to another. CONCLUSIONS: The low values of roughness found in the measurements and the differences between the values of the batches suggest that these companies should consider improving their surface treatments to achieve more uniform roughness.
Authors: Rafael Manfro; Marcelo Carlos Bortoluzzi; Vinícius Fabris; Carlos Nelson Elias; Vera Cavalcanti de Araújo Journal: J Maxillofac Oral Surg Date: 2013-09-13
Authors: Helder H M Menezes; Marina M Naves; Henara L Costa; Tarsis P Barbosa; Jéssica A Ferreira; Denildo Magalhães; Elizabeth F Martinez Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2018-10-17
Authors: Daniela de Morais Rocha; Marcelo Luchesi Teixeira; Luis Guilherme Scavone de Macedo; André Antonio Pelegrine; Antonio Carlos Aloise Journal: Contemp Clin Dent Date: 2022-06-21