2012
DOI: 10.1590/s1516-14392012005000035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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 addi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
26
0
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

5
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
2
26
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…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.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%