Abstract
We present a detailed investigation of the surface characteristics of five commercial titanium implants with different surface finishing (double acid etching, anodization and incorporation of Ca/P, acid etching and deposition of Ca/P, hydroxyapatite-blasting, acid etching and Ca/P-blasting) produced by five different manufacturers. A set of experimental techniques were employed to study the surface chemical composition and morphology: XPS, XRD, SEM, EDS, and AFM. According to the implat manufacturers, the addition of Ca and P at the implant surface is a main feature of these implants (except the double acid etched implant, which was included for comparative purpose). However, the results showed a great discrepancy on the final amount of these elements on the implant surface, which suggests a different effectiveness of the employed surface finishing methods to fix those elements on the implant surface. Our results show that only the method used by the manufacturer of hydroxyapatite-blasting surface finished implants was efficient to produce a hydroxyapatite coating. This group also showed the highest roughness parameters.
Highlights
Oral rehabilitation by means of endosseous dental implants is an essential issue in clinical practice
Different chemical properties of protective layer of titanium-based implants analyzed in this study show different behavior of deposited layer
The X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis showed that the surface of the implants studied were mainly composed of a layer of TiO2, but there are other oxides associated with a lesser amount as TiO and Ti2O3
Summary
Oral rehabilitation by means of endosseous dental implants is an essential issue in clinical practice. Local bone quality and systemic implications on the oral healing condition have a direct role in the success of dental implant therapy[1]. Since the finding of the osseointegration concept, the characteristics of the interface between bone and implant, and possible ways to improve it, have been of particular interest in dental and orthopedic implant research. One means to improve implant success is through methods to increase the amount of bone contact along the body of the implant. While it may seem obvious that increased surface roughness of implants leads to greater success it is not clear what aspect of “roughness” is advantageous[4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
