Chemical and topographic analysis of treated surfaces of five different commercial dental titanium implants

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.

Diabetes and Oral Implant Failure

“…Titanium with different surface modifications shows a wide range of chemical/physical properties and surface topographies/ morphologies, depending on how they are prepared and handled (Chrcanovic et al, 2012;Chrcanovic et al, 2013), and it is not clear whether, in general, one surface modification is better than another (Wennerberg and Albrektsson, 2009;Wennerberg and Albrektsson, 2010). These variables may have affected the outcome-and not just the subjection of the insertion of implants in patients who had diabetes or not.…”

Tilted versus axially placed dental implants: A meta-analysis

“…65 The studies here included implants of different brands and surface treatments. Titanium with different surface modifications shows a wide range of chemical, physical properties, and surface topographies or morphologies, depending on how they are prepared and handled, [66][67][68] and it is not clear whether, in general, one surface modification is better than another. 65 Concerning the angulation of the implants, one should recall that in the interpretation of the results, the classification of tilted and axially placed implants was based on the assessment of the inclination in only the mesial-distal direction.…”

Periodontally compromised vs. periodontally healthy patients and dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The moderate micro-roughness of most modern implants did not seem coupled to more than 1-2% of periimplantitis when followed up for 10 years or more as indicated in a recent review of ten different long term clinical reports of Tioblast, SLA and TiUnite implants. 38 Titanium with different surface modifications shows a wide range of chemical, physical properties, and surface topographies or morphologies, depending on how they are prepared and handled, [39][40][41] and it is not clear whether, in general, one surface modification is better than another. 42 Another possible limitation of some studies is that implants were not tested for stability during some of the late follow-up visits since many of the prostheses could not be removed because they were permanently cemented.…”