|Eighteen different implant surfaces were characterized: Straumann SLA (ITI Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), Ankylos (Dentsply Friadent, Mannheim, Germany), Xive S (Dentsply Friadent, Mannheim, Germany), Frialit (Dentsply Friadent, Mannheim, Germany), Promote (Camlog, Basel, Switzerland), Dentium Superline (Dentium Co., Seoul, Korea), Osstem SA (Osstem implant Co., Busan, Korea), Genesio (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), Aadva (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), MIS Seven (MIS Implants Technologies, Bar Lev, Israel), ActivFluor (Blue Sky Bio, Grayslake, IL, USA), Tekka SA2 (Tekka, Brignais, France), Twinkon Ref (Tekka, Brignais, France), Bredent OCS blueSKY (Bredent Medical, Senden, Germany), Magitech MS2010 (Magitech M2I, Levallois-Perret, France), EVL Plus (SERF, Decines, France), Alpha Bio (Alpha Bio Tec Ltd, Petach Tikva, Israel), Neoporos (Neodent, Curitiba, Brazil). 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 18 different surfaces of this group, 11 were based on a commercially pure titanium (grade 2 or 4) and 7 on a titanium-aluminium alloy (grade 5 or grade 23 ELI titanium). 4 surfaces presented some chemical impregnation of the titanium core, and 5 surfaces were covered with residual alumina blasting particles. 15 surfaces presented different degrees of inorganic pollutions, and 2 presented a severe organic pollution overcoat. Only 3 surfaces presented no pollution (and also no chemical modification at all): GC Aadva, Genesio, MIS Seven. From a morphological standpoint, all surfaces were microrough, with different microtopographical aspects and values. All surfaces were nanosmooth, and therefore presented no significant and repetitive nanostructures. 14 surfaces were homogeneous and 4 heterogeneous. None of them 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 SLA-type surfaces have specific morphological characteristics (microrough, nanosmooth, with rare and in general accidental chemical modification) and are the most frequent surfaces used in the industry. However they present different designs, and pollutions are often detected (with blasting/etching residues particularly). Users should be aware of these specificities if they decide to use these products.
|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