Mogammad T Peck1, Bruno R Chrcanovic2. 1. Department of Oral Medicine and Periodontology, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa, e-mail: mpeck@uwc.ac.za. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, MalmS University, MalmS, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surface characterization of dental implants allows us to better understand the effects of the implant on the host biological response. In this study, we analyzed and compared these characteristics among implants commercially available in South Africa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight implants from different manufacturers were chosen for analysis (Touareg, ICE, (R)Evolutions, Uniti, AnyRidge, MIS, Ivory-QSI, Southern), using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), interferometry, and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy to study the surface chemical composition and morphology. RESULTS: The results indicate that variations in manufacturer processes result in implant surfaces that are distinctly different from one another. Most implants presented a moderately rough surface with sandblasted-only implant surfaces having a lower mean value of Sa when compared with sandblasted and acid-etched surfaces. Carbon contamination was detected on all the implants and that of aluminum on five implant surfaces. Ca and P were detected on the surface of Touareg implants, indicating the manufacturer's attempt to enhance osseointegration. CONCLUSION: The surface of the implants showed a range of chemical, physical properties, and surface topographies. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The results indicate that implant surface treatment is not standardized. This may have clinical implications. Further clinical research is required.
BACKGROUND: Surface characterization of dental implants allows us to better understand the effects of the implant on the host biological response. In this study, we analyzed and compared these characteristics among implants commercially available in South Africa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight implants from different manufacturers were chosen for analysis (Touareg, ICE, (R)Evolutions, Uniti, AnyRidge, MIS, Ivory-QSI, Southern), using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), interferometry, and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy to study the surface chemical composition and morphology. RESULTS: The results indicate that variations in manufacturer processes result in implant surfaces that are distinctly different from one another. Most implants presented a moderately rough surface with sandblasted-only implant surfaces having a lower mean value of Sa when compared with sandblasted and acid-etched surfaces. Carbon contamination was detected on all the implants and that of aluminum on five implant surfaces. Ca and P were detected on the surface of Touareg implants, indicating the manufacturer's attempt to enhance osseointegration. CONCLUSION: The surface of the implants showed a range of chemical, physical properties, and surface topographies. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The results indicate that implant surface treatment is not standardized. This may have clinical implications. Further clinical research is required.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemical analysis; Implant surface; Roughness; Titanium.
Authors: Carlo Mangano; Jamil Awad Shibli; Jefferson Trabach Pires; Giuseppe Luongo; Adriano Piattelli; Giovanna Iezzi Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 3.411