Relationship Between the Surface Chemical Composition of Implants and Contact With the Substrate

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to use scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry to assess possible morphologic and chemical changes after performing double-insertion and pullout tests of implants of different shapes and surface treatments. Four different types of implants were used-cylindrical machined-surface implants, cylindrical double-surface-treated porous implants, cylindrical surface-treated porous implants, and tapered surface-treated porous implants-representing a total of 32 screws. The implants were inserted into synthetic bone femurs, totaling 8 samples, before performing each insertion with standardized torque. After each pullout the implants were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry using a universal testing machine and magnified 35 times. No structural changes were detected on morphological surface characterization, only substrate accumulation. As for composition, there were concentration differences in the titanium, oxygen, and carbon elements. Implants with surface acid treatment undergo greater superficial changes in chemical composition than machined implants, that is, the greater the contact area of the implant with the substrate, the greater the oxide layer change. In addition, prior manipulation can alter the chemical composition of implants, typically to a greater degree in surface-treated implants.

Superficial Characteristics of Titanium after Treatment of Chorreated Surface, Passive Acid, and Decontamination with Argon Plasma

“…Normally, they are presented in low percentages—a few units at most—and may be derived from washing or, as the case may be, from some of the processing phases [26]. The surface elements of the implants of the present study were mainly Ti, O, and C. These data are consistent with previous studies [25,27].…”

“…A percentage of Ti greater than 12% can be considered satisfactory, as was the case with our samples, in which a value of 18.0 ± 0.1% was obtained. It is, therefore, an expected value, which is in accordance with the literature and which will provide good resistance to corrosion and promote osseointegration [25,29,30,31].…”

“…The dominance of the titanium and oxygen signals show that the surface is mainly composed of a layer of titanium oxide based on TiO, TiO 2 , and TiO 3 . The signal obtained from carbon is mainly due to surface contamination by molecules containing carbon, which is to be expected on surfaces exposed to the atmosphere [25].…”

“…The percentage of carbon found according to the literature oscillates between 17.9% and 76.5% regardless of the topography of the surface [35]. The expected percentages of carbon in a titanium surface are between 30% and 40% [25,29]. The value obtained in our samples was 39.4 ± 0.5%, which means that osseointegration will not be affected by this percentage of carbon, and therefore, a high degree of bone-implant union is expected.…”

The chemical surface evaluation of black and white porous titanium granules and different commercial dental implants with energy‐dispersive x‐ray spectroscopy analysis

“…In a study by Costa Valente et al, implants with different implant surfaces were implanted into the synthetic bone graft, and implants were assessed by SEM and EDX after removal from the graft blocks. It was shown that the graft materials deposited around the grooves of the dental implant affected the dental implant surface chemistry, and the surface chemistry changed after the implant surface was mechanically cleaned …”