Identification card and codification of the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 dental implant surfaces. Part 5: chemically coated surfaces (Group 3, coating) and implant collar surfaces (Group 4, collar)
|Sixteen different implant surfaces were characterized: NanoTite (Biomet 3I, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA), SLActive (ITI Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), Roxolid SLActive (ITI Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), Xpeed (MegaGen Co., Seoul, Korea), Xpeed Plus (MegaGen Co., Seoul, Korea), Inicell (Thommen, Waldenburg, Switzerland), Integra-CP/NanoTite (Bicon, Boston, MA, USA), Dentis Haptite (Dentis, Daegu, Korea), Legacy 2 HA (Implant Direct LLC, Calabasas, CA, USA), Biohorizons HA (Biohorizons, Birmingham, AL, USA), Osstem HA (Osstem implant Co., Busan, Korea), DIO BioTite-H (DIO Co., Busan, Korea), Laser-Lok collar (Biohorizons, Birmingham, AL, USA), SBM collar (Implant Direct, Calabasas, CA, USA), Ossean collar (Intra-Lock, Boca Raton, Florida, USA), Kohno DES ZirTi (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 readerfriendly ID card.|
|From a chemical standpoint, in the 16 different surfaces of this group, 5 were based on a commercially pure titanium (grade 4), 4 on a titanium-aluminium alloy (grade 5 or 23), 1 on a titanium-zirconium alloy, 3 on hydroxyapatite, 1 on brushite and 2 on a calcium phosphate core. 13 surfaces presented different forms of chemical impregnation or discontinuous coating of the core material. 15 surfaces presented different degrees of inorganic pollutions, and 1 presented also some organic pollution overcoat. Only 1 surface presented no pollution (Ossean collar). From a morphological standpoint, 1 surface was micropatterned (laser patterning) and 15 microrough, with different microtopographical aspects and values. 8 surfaces were smooth on the nanoscale, and therefore presented no significant and repetitive nanostructures. Eight surfaces were nanomodified: 2 implants were nanorough (Haptite and Ossean collar) and 6 were covered with nanoparticles (CaP, NaCl or Ca nanocrystals deposition: NanoTite, SLActive and Xpeed). Hydroxyapatite and brushite coated surfaces were heterogeneous and covered with extended cracks all over the surface. Only 6 surfaces were homogeneous and 10 were heterogeneous. Only one surface (Ossean collar) was fractal.
Discussion and Conclusion.
|Ehrenfest DMD, Del Corso M, Kang B-S et al.||POSEIDO Journal, 2014;2(1) 81|
|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
Find NEWS and PUBLICATIONS here according to your interests or use the search box.