|Eight different implant surfaces were characterized: TiUnite (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden), Ospol (Ospol, Höllviken, Sweden), INNO (Cowellmedi Co., Busan, Korea), Shinhung M (Shinhung Co., Seoul, Korea), Tecom REP (Tecom Implantology/Titanmed, Galbiate, Italy), BioSpark (Keystone Dental, Burlington, MA, USA), Kohno HRPS (Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, Italy), Kohno DES HRPS (Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, Italy). Three samples of each implant were analyzed. Superficial chemical composition was analyzed using XPS/ESCA (X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy/Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis) and the 100nm in-depth profile was established using Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES). The microtopography was quantified using optical profilometry (OP). The general morphology and the nanotopography were evaluated using a Field Emission-Scanning Electron Microscope (FE-SEM). Finally, the characterization code of each surface was established using the ISIS, and the main characteristics of each surface were summarized in a reader-friendly ID card|
|From a chemical standpoint, in the 8 different surfaces of this group, all were based on a commercially pure titanium (grade 2 or 4), what appeared typical of surfaces produced through a modification of the core material metallurgy using anodization or titanium-plasma spraying. The 6 anodized surfaces presented different forms of chemical impregnation of the titanium core. Seven surfaces presented different degrees of inorganic pollutions. Only 1 surface presented no pollution. From a morphological standpoint, 5 surfaces were microporous (anodization) and 3 microrough, with different microtopographical aspects and values. Seven surfaces were smooth on the nanoscale, and therefore presented no significant and repetitive nanostructures. One implant was nanopatterned through a specific anodization process. Six implants presented various forms of cracks: three anodized implants had local cracks, while TiUnite and Kohno HRPS were covered with extended cracks all over the surface. Anodized surfaces could be considered as homogeneous, while TPS surfaces were heterogeneous (specificities of the production process). No surface was fractal.|
Discussion and Conclusion.
The ISIS systematic approach allowed to gather the main characteristics of these commercially available products in a clear and accurate ID card. The implants of the Group 1 have very specific morphological characteristics (frequent cracks and absence of nanotexture, specific microroughness or porosity), and users should be aware of these specificities if they decide to use these specific technologies.
|Ehrenfest DMD, Del Corso M, Kang B-S et al.||POSEIDO Journal, 2014;2(1)|
|This is a post of a scientific or business information. The information given here is checked thoroughly by “Implant-Register”. However we can´t be responsible for the content. Contact the publisher, if you have questions. You may inform us about changes of the information to improve the Register.|
let us know