The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Chemical and Topographic Analysis of Eight commercially Available Dental Implants

Mogammad Thabit Peck, Bruno R Chrcanovic

Citation Information : Peck MT, Chrcanovic BR. Chemical and Topographic Analysis of Eight commercially Available Dental Implants. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (5):354-360.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1855

Published Online: 01-09-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).


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 acidetched 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.

How to cite this article

Peck MT, Chrcanovic BR. Chemical and Topographic Analysis of Eight commercially Available Dental Implants. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(5):354-360.

PDF Share
  1. Reality of dental implant surface modification: a short literature review. Open Biomed Eng J 2014 Oct;8:114-119.
  2. Chemical and topographic analysis of treated surfaces of five different commercial dental titanium implants. Mater Res 2012 May-Jun;15(3):372-382.
  3. Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000 May-Jun;15(3):331-344.
  4. Influence of different acid etchings on the superficial characteristics of Ti Sandblasted with Al2O3. Mater Res 2013 Sep-Oct;16(5):1006-1014.
  5. Study of the influence of acid etching treatments on the superficial characteristics of Ti. Mater Res 2014 Mar-Apr;17(2):373-380.
  6. Improving osseointegration of dental implants. Exp Rev Med Devices 2010 Mar;7(2):241-256.
  7. Etched implants: a comparative surface analysis of four implant systems. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2004 Apr;69(1):46-57.
  8. Oral implant surfaces: Part 1 – review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont 2004 Sep-Oct;17(5):536-543.
  9. Early loading of sandblasted and acid-etched implants: a randomizedcontrolled double-blind split-mouth study. Five-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008 May;19(5):148-152.
  10. Implant survival rates after maxillary sinus augmentation. Eur J Oral Sci 2008 Dec;116(6):497-506.
  11. A retrospective analysis of early implant failure of the Adin Touareg-X dental implant system. Int J Clin Dent Sci 2014 Sep;5(2):30-35.
  12. Influence of a nanometer-scale surface enhancement on de novo bone formation on titanium implants: a histomorphometric study in human maxillae. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2007 Jun;27(3):211-219.
  13. A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995 Mar;6(1):24-30.
  14. Bone tissue response to commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and coarse particles of aluminum oxide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996 Jan-Feb;11(1):38-45.
  15. Experimental study of turned and grit-blasted screw-shaped implants with special emphasis on effects of blasting material and surface topography. Biomaterials 1996 Jan;17(1):15-22.
  16. Biomechanical and histologic evaluation of non-washed resorbable blasting media and alumina-blasted/acid-etched surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012 Jan;23(1):132-135.
  17. Controlled electro-implementation of fluoride in titanium implant surfaces enhances cortical bone formation and mineralization. Acta Biomater 2010 Mar;6(3):1025-1032.
  18. Three-years clinical outcome of immediate provisionalization of single OsseoSpeed implants in extraction sockets and healed ridges. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013 Feb;24(2):217-223.
  19. Effects of hydrophilicity and fluoride surface modifications to titanium dental implants on early osseointegration: An in vivo study. Implant Dent 2014 Oct;23(5):529-533.
  20. Comparison between bioactive fluoride modified and bioinert anodically oxidized implant surfaces in early bone response using rabbit tibia model. Implant Dent 2012 Apr;21(2):124-128.
  21. High concentration of residual aluminum oxide on titanium surface inhibits extracellular matrix mineralization. J Biomed Mater Res A 2008 Dec;87(3):588-597.
  22. Evaluation of surface contamination of titanium dental implants by LV-SEM: comparison with XPS measurements. Surf Interface Anal 1997;25(13):983-988.
  23. Surface chemistry effects of topographic modification of titanium dental implant surfaces: in vitro experiments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003 Jan-Feb;18(1):46-52.
  24. Characterization of sterilized CP titanium implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990 Winter;5(4):360-367.
  25. Surface characterization of titanium implants treated in hydrofluoric acid. J Biomater Nanobiotech 2012 Jan;3(1):87-91.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.