N Kournetas1, S Spintzyk2, E Schweizer2, T Sawada2, F Said3, P Schmid2, J Geis-Gerstorfer2, G Eliades4, F Rupp5. 1. Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Athens, Greece. 2. University Hospital Tübingen, Section Medical Materials Science & Technology, Tübingen, Germany. 3. University Hospital Tübingen, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine, Department of Prosthodontics, Tübingen, Germany. 4. Department of Biomaterials, School of Dentistry, University of Athens, Greece. 5. University Hospital Tübingen, Section Medical Materials Science & Technology, Tübingen, Germany. Electronic address: frank.rupp@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Comparability of topographical data of implant surfaces in literature is low and their clinical relevance often equivocal. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of scanning electron microscopy and optical interferometry to assess statistically similar 3-dimensional roughness parameter results and to evaluate these data based on predefined criteria regarded relevant for a favorable biological response. METHODS: Four different commercial dental screw-type implants (NanoTite Certain Prevail, TiUnite Brånemark Mk III, XiVE S Plus and SLA Standard Plus) were analyzed by stereo scanning electron microscopy and white light interferometry. Surface height, spatial and hybrid roughness parameters (Sa, Sz, Ssk, Sku, Sal, Str, Sdr) were assessed from raw and filtered data (Gaussian 50μm and 5μm cut-off-filters), respectively. Data were statistically compared by one-way ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test. For a clinically relevant interpretation, a categorizing evaluation approach was used based on predefined threshold criteria for each roughness parameter. RESULTS: The two methods exhibited predominantly statistical differences. Dependent on roughness parameters and filter settings, both methods showed variations in rankings of the implant surfaces and differed in their ability to discriminate the different topographies. Overall, the analyses revealed scale-dependent roughness data. Compared to the pure statistical approach, the categorizing evaluation resulted in much more similarities between the two methods. SIGNIFICANCE: This study suggests to reconsider current approaches for the topographical evaluation of implant surfaces and to further seek after proper experimental settings. Furthermore, the specific role of different roughness parameters for the bioresponse has to be studied in detail in order to better define clinically relevant, scale-dependent and parameter-specific thresholds and ranges.
OBJECTIVE: Comparability of topographical data of implant surfaces in literature is low and their clinical relevance often equivocal. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of scanning electron microscopy and optical interferometry to assess statistically similar 3-dimensional roughness parameter results and to evaluate these data based on predefined criteria regarded relevant for a favorable biological response. METHODS: Four different commercial dental screw-type implants (NanoTite Certain Prevail, TiUnite Brånemark Mk III, XiVE S Plus and SLA Standard Plus) were analyzed by stereo scanning electron microscopy and white light interferometry. Surface height, spatial and hybrid roughness parameters (Sa, Sz, Ssk, Sku, Sal, Str, Sdr) were assessed from raw and filtered data (Gaussian 50μm and 5μm cut-off-filters), respectively. Data were statistically compared by one-way ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test. For a clinically relevant interpretation, a categorizing evaluation approach was used based on predefined threshold criteria for each roughness parameter. RESULTS: The two methods exhibited predominantly statistical differences. Dependent on roughness parameters and filter settings, both methods showed variations in rankings of the implant surfaces and differed in their ability to discriminate the different topographies. Overall, the analyses revealed scale-dependent roughness data. Compared to the pure statistical approach, the categorizing evaluation resulted in much more similarities between the two methods. SIGNIFICANCE: This study suggests to reconsider current approaches for the topographical evaluation of implant surfaces and to further seek after proper experimental settings. Furthermore, the specific role of different roughness parameters for the bioresponse has to be studied in detail in order to better define clinically relevant, scale-dependent and parameter-specific thresholds and ranges.
Authors: J V Ríos-Santos; A M Menjívar-Galán; M Herrero-Climent; B Ríos-Carrasco; A Fernández-Palacín; R A Perez; F J Gil Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: Carlos A Jurado; Clarisa Amarillas-Gastelum; Kelvin I Afrashtehfar; Liliana Argueta-Figueroa; Nicholas G Fischer; Abdulrahman Alshabib Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 3.748