2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(00)00002-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Scanning electron microscopical analysis of laser-treated titanium implant surfaces—a comparative study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

8
136
0
10

Year Published

2003
2003
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 196 publications
(154 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
8
136
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…It was reported that the SEM of laser treated implants demonstrated a deep and regular honeycomb pattern with small pores and the removal torque was 23.58 N-cm for the controlled machined implants and 62.58 N-cm for the lasertreated implants. A. Gaggl et al 50 made an comparative study on four different dental implant surfaces treated with machined roughness, titanium spray coating, treated by aluminium oxide and treated by laser. It is reported that the laser-treated surface has high purity and showed enough surface roughness for good osteointegration and had a regular pattern of micro pores with an interval of 10-12 μm, a diameter of 25 μm and a depth of 20 μm.…”
Section: Laser Modificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was reported that the SEM of laser treated implants demonstrated a deep and regular honeycomb pattern with small pores and the removal torque was 23.58 N-cm for the controlled machined implants and 62.58 N-cm for the lasertreated implants. A. Gaggl et al 50 made an comparative study on four different dental implant surfaces treated with machined roughness, titanium spray coating, treated by aluminium oxide and treated by laser. It is reported that the laser-treated surface has high purity and showed enough surface roughness for good osteointegration and had a regular pattern of micro pores with an interval of 10-12 μm, a diameter of 25 μm and a depth of 20 μm.…”
Section: Laser Modificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the above described methods, laser induced surface modification techniques have attracted enormous scientific interest. One of the most attractive features of laser processing is that the inherent biocompatibility of the starting material has been found to be not negatively affected during processing [21] and causes minimal contamination which promotes osteointegration and subsequent better implant stability [22][23][24][25]. Biocompatibility properties of laser modified surfaces have been extensively studied.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Grizon et al found that rougher titanium implants produced a stronger bone response compared to smoother implants after a long term implantation [29]. Wennerberg and colleagues demonstrated that wave structures with an average wavelength of 11.6 µm and height deviations of 1.4 µm were optimal for titanium orthopaedic biomedical implants [22,30].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, the application of these alloys under severe friction conditions is highly restricted due to their poor tribological properties such as high coefficient of friction and low hardness [1,2]. At the same time, from the alloy used as an implant material especially in the orthopedic fields, roughening of the surface is requirement [3].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%