Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness pattern
Rosa, Marcio Borges; Albrektsson, Tomas; Francischone, Carlos Eduardo; Schwartz Filho, Humberto Osvaldo; Wennerberg, Ann.
Affiliation
  • Rosa, Marcio Borges; São Leopoldo Mandic University. School of Dentistry. Division of Implantology. Campinas. BR
  • Albrektsson, Tomas; Gothenburg University. Department of Biomaterials. Gothenburg. SE
  • Francischone, Carlos Eduardo; São Leopoldo Mandic University. School of Dentistry. Division of Implantology. Campinas. BR
  • Schwartz Filho, Humberto Osvaldo; University of Santo Amaro-UNISA. School of Dentistry. Division of Implantology. São Paulo. BR
  • Wennerberg, Ann; Malmö University. Department of Prosthodontics. Malmö. SE
J. appl. oral sci ; 20(5): 550-555, Sept.-Oct. 2012. ilus
Article in English | LILACS | ID: lil-654920
Responsible library: BR1.1
ABSTRACT
An important parameter for the clinical success of dental implants is the formation of direct contact between the implant and surrounding bone, whose quality is directly influenced by the implant surface roughness. A screw-shaped design and a surface with an average roughness of Sa of 1-2 µm showed a better result. The combination of blasting and etching has been a commonly used surface treatment technique. The versatility of this type of treatment allows for a wide variation in the procedures in order to obtain the desired roughness.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare the roughness values and morphological characteristics of 04 brands of implants, using the same type of surface treatment. In addition, to compare the results among brands, in order to assess whether the type of treatment determines the values and the characteristics of implant surface roughness. MATERIAL AND

METHODS:

Three implants were purchased directly from each selected company in the market, i.e., 03 Brazilian companies (Biomet 3i of Brazil, Neodent and Titaniumfix) and 01 Korean company (Oneplant). The quantitative or numerical characterization of the roughness was performed using an interferometer. The qualitative analysis of the surface topography obtained with the treatment was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy images.

RESULTS:

The evaluated implants showed a significant variation in roughness values Sa for Oneplant was 1.01 µm; Titaniumfix reached 0.90 µm; implants from Neodent 0.67 µm, and Biomet 3i of Brazil 0.53 µm. Moreover, the SEM images showed very different patterns for the surfaces examined. CONCCLUSIONS The surface treatment alone is not able to determine the roughness values and characteristics.
Subject(s)


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: LILACS Main subject: Titanium / Dental Implants / Dental Implantation, Endosseous Type of study: Qualitative research Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: J. appl. oral sci Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2012 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil / Sweden Institution/Affiliation country: Gothenburg University/SE / Malmö University/SE / São Leopoldo Mandic University/BR / University of Santo Amaro-UNISA/BR

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: LILACS Main subject: Titanium / Dental Implants / Dental Implantation, Endosseous Type of study: Qualitative research Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: J. appl. oral sci Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2012 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil / Sweden Institution/Affiliation country: Gothenburg University/SE / Malmö University/SE / São Leopoldo Mandic University/BR / University of Santo Amaro-UNISA/BR
...