RESEARCH ARTICLE
Microscopic Study of Surface Microtopographic Characteristics of Dental Implants
M. Sezin1, *, L. Croharé2, J.C. Ibañez3, *
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2016Volume: 10
First Page: 139
Last Page: 147
Publisher ID: TODENTJ-10-139
DOI: 10.2174/1874210601610010139
Article History:
Received Date: 26/12/2014Revision Received Date: 28/12/2015
Acceptance Date: 30/12/2015
Electronic publication date: 30/04/2016
Collection year: 2016
open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
Abstract
Objective:
To determine and compare the micro topographic characteristics of dental implants submitted to different surface treatments, using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Materials and Methods:
Implants were divided into 7 groups of 3 specimens each, according to the surface treatment used: group 1: Osseotite, BIOMET 3i; group 2: SLA surface, Institut Straumann AG; group 3: Oxalife surface, Tree-Oss implant; group 4: B&W implant surface; group 5: Q-implant surface; group 6: ML implant surface; group 7: RBM surface, Rosterdent implant. The surfaces were examined under SEM (Carl Zeiss FE-SEM-SIGMA). Image Proplus software was used to determine the number and mean diameter of pores per area unit (mm). The data obtained were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney test. A confocal laser microscope (LEXT-OLS4100 Olympus) was used to conduct the comparative study of surface roughness (Ra). Data were analyzed using Tukey's HSD test.
Results:
The largest average pore diameter calculated in microns was found in group 5 (3.45 µm+/-1.91) while the smallest in group 7 (1.47µm+/-1.29). Significant differences were observed among each one of the groups studied (p<0.05). The largest number of pores/mm2 was found in group 2 (229343) and the smallest number in group 4 (10937). Group 2 showed significant differences regarding the other groups (p<0.05). The greatest roughness (Ra) was observed in group 2 (0.975µm+/-0.115) and the smallest in group 4 (0.304µm+/-0.063). Group 2 was significantly different from the other groups (p<0.05).
Conclusion:
The micro topography observed in the different groups presented dissimilar and specific features, depending on the chemical treatment used for the surfaces..
