Comparison of Roughness, Wettability, and SEM Features between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants.

Q3 Dentistry
Kshitiz Chhabra, Arvina Rajasekar
{"title":"Comparison of Roughness, Wettability, and SEM Features between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants.","authors":"Kshitiz Chhabra, Arvina Rajasekar","doi":"10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2023049632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The surface of dental implants has undergone multiple modifications across the timeline to enhance osseointegration, thereby enhancing the success of dental implants. This study compared the surface roughness, wettability and topography of sandblasted acid-etched, and oxidized titanium dental implants. Three commercially available implants-namely, SLA, SLActive, and TiUnite-were evaluated for surface roughness in terms of Ra, Rq, and Rz; wettability in terms of contact angle (CA); and topography using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Roughness and wettability values were compared between the three surfaces by ANOVA and pairwise comparison by Tukey's HSD post hoc testing using SPSS Software. A p value of < 0.01 was considered to be statistically significant. The TiUnite surface exhibited the highest roughness values (Ra = 1.91 ± 0.006 μm, Rq = 2.99 ± 0.005 μm, Rz = 8.37 ± 0.003 μm) followed by the SLA and SLActive surfaces. The contact angles of the SLA, SLActive, and TiUnite dental implants were 98.44 ± 0.52°, 9 ± 0.03°, and 94.39 ± 0.08°, respectively. These data demonstrated statistically significant differences between the three surfaces (p < 0.01). There were no distinct differences in SEM features between the SLA and SLActive surfaces. However, the TiUnite surface exhibited a distinctly porous morphology. Oxidized dental implants differ from sandblasted acid-etched implants in terms of roughness, wettability, and surface topography.</p>","PeriodicalId":16125,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term effects of medical implants","volume":"34 4","pages":"57-63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term effects of medical implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2023049632","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The surface of dental implants has undergone multiple modifications across the timeline to enhance osseointegration, thereby enhancing the success of dental implants. This study compared the surface roughness, wettability and topography of sandblasted acid-etched, and oxidized titanium dental implants. Three commercially available implants-namely, SLA, SLActive, and TiUnite-were evaluated for surface roughness in terms of Ra, Rq, and Rz; wettability in terms of contact angle (CA); and topography using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Roughness and wettability values were compared between the three surfaces by ANOVA and pairwise comparison by Tukey's HSD post hoc testing using SPSS Software. A p value of < 0.01 was considered to be statistically significant. The TiUnite surface exhibited the highest roughness values (Ra = 1.91 ± 0.006 μm, Rq = 2.99 ± 0.005 μm, Rz = 8.37 ± 0.003 μm) followed by the SLA and SLActive surfaces. The contact angles of the SLA, SLActive, and TiUnite dental implants were 98.44 ± 0.52°, 9 ± 0.03°, and 94.39 ± 0.08°, respectively. These data demonstrated statistically significant differences between the three surfaces (p < 0.01). There were no distinct differences in SEM features between the SLA and SLActive surfaces. However, the TiUnite surface exhibited a distinctly porous morphology. Oxidized dental implants differ from sandblasted acid-etched implants in terms of roughness, wettability, and surface topography.

喷砂酸蚀钛牙科植入物与氧化钛牙科植入物的粗糙度、润湿性和扫描电镜特征比较。
为了增强骨结合,从而提高种植牙的成功率,种植牙的表面历经了多次改良。本研究比较了喷砂酸蚀和氧化钛牙科种植体的表面粗糙度、润湿性和形貌。使用扫描电子显微镜 (SEM) 评估了三种市售种植体(即 SLA、SLActive 和 TiUnite)的表面粗糙度(Ra、Rq 和 Rz)、润湿性(接触角 (CA))和形貌。使用 SPSS 软件对三种表面的粗糙度和润湿性值进行方差分析和 Tukey's HSD 后检验。P 值小于 0.01 即为具有统计学意义。TiUnite 表面的粗糙度值最高(Ra = 1.91 ± 0.006 μm,Rq = 2.99 ± 0.005 μm,Rz = 8.37 ± 0.003 μm),其次是 SLA 和 SLActive 表面。SLA、SLActive 和 TiUnite 牙科种植体的接触角分别为 98.44 ± 0.52°、9 ± 0.03°和 94.39 ± 0.08°。这些数据表明三种表面之间存在显著的统计学差异(P < 0.01)。SLA 和 SLActive 表面的 SEM 特征没有明显差异。不过,TiUnite 表面呈现出明显的多孔形态。氧化牙科种植体与喷砂酸蚀种植体在粗糙度、润湿性和表面形貌方面存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: MEDICAL IMPLANTS are being used in every organ of the human body. Ideally, medical implants must have biomechanical properties comparable to those of autogenous tissues without any adverse effects. In each anatomic site, studies of the long-term effects of medical implants must be undertaken to determine accurately the safety and performance of the implants. Today, implant surgery has become an interdisciplinary undertaking involving a number of skilled and gifted specialists. For example, successful cochlear implants will involve audiologists, audiological physicians, speech and language therapists, otolaryngologists, nurses, neuro-otologists, teachers of the deaf, hearing therapists, cochlear implant manufacturers, and others involved with hearing-impaired and deaf individuals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信