We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. OK, I have understood
International Poster Journal of Dentistry and Oral Medicine
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 4 (2002), No. 3     15. Sep. 2002

Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 2002, Vol 4 No 3, Poster 143

Surface characterisation of dental implants by confocal laser scanning microscopy

Language: English

Authors: Dr. med. Dr. med. dent. Bilal Al-Nawas1, Susanne Wagner1, Dipl.-Phys. Hermann Götz2, Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Heinz Duschner2, PD Dr. med. Dr. med. dent. Knut Achim Grötz1, Prof. Dr. med. Dr. med. dent. Wilfried Wagner1
1Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mainz
2Applied Structure and Microanalysis, Mainz

Datum/Veranstaltung/Ort/Date/Event/Venue: 
5.-8.Sep. 2001
37th Annual Meeting of the Continental European Division of the International Association of Dental Research
Rome, Italy

Objectives

Recent data suggests an influence of both surface roughness and surface topography on in vivo osseointegration of implants (Buser et al. 1998). As metrical and topographical characterisation depends on the underlying method a comparative study of recent implant types is desirable. 


Materials & Method

37 different dental implants were studied by confocal laser scanning microscopy. Images (125*125µm) of 5 different positions were obtained. Roughness value Sa and the developed surface area (ratio) Sdr were calculated. Implants were grouped according to the type of surface treatment. 


Results

Fig. 1:
SEMADOS
machined
SA = 0.37 ±0.07

Fig. 2:
Branemark Mk III
machined
SA = 0.75 ±0.22

Fig. 3:
SteriOss Uncoated
double etched
SA = 1.67 ±0.30

Fig. 4:
3i
double etched
SA = 1.82 ±0.08

Fig. 5:
ASTRA fST
TiO2 blasted
SA = 1.91 ±0.22

Fig. 6:
ASTRA fTiOBl
TiO2 blasted
SA = 1.95 ±0.24 

Fig. 7:
BICON uncoated
 
SA = 1.96 ±0.05

Fig. 8:
ZL Ticer
anodic oxidation
SA = 2.90 ±0.22

Fig. 9:
PARAGON SBM
etched & HA blasted
SA = 2.91 ±0.26

Fig. 10:
Lifecore RBM
CaPhosphate blasted
SA = 2.95 ±0.20

Fig. 11:
BIO HORIZON D2
CaPhosphate blasted
SA = 3.12 ±0.39

Fig. 12:
Branemark TiUnite
anodic oxidation
SA = 3.14 ±0.11

Fig. 13:
CALCITEK MTX
MTX blasted
SA = 3.30 ±0.22

Fig. 14:
ITI SLA
blasted & etched
SA = 3.32 ±0.22


Fig. 15:
SEMADOS rauh
Al2O3 blasted
SA = 3.57 ±0.18

Fig. 16:
Frialit-2 Tiefenstr
blasted & etched
SA = 3.94 ±0.38



Fig. 17:  Table 1

Fig. 18:  Table 2



Fig. 19:
IMZ Tiefenstr
blasted & etched
SA = 4.53 ±0.23

Fig. 20:
TIOLOX
Al2O3 blasted
SA = 4.94 ±0.28

Fig. 21:
ANKYLOS
blasted
SA = 4.97 ±0.32

Fig. 22:
ORALTRONICS kiT
TPS
SA = 3.60 ±0.30

Fig. 23:
ORALTRONICS Pitteasy
FBR: TPS&CaP coatedSA = 3.67 ±0.48

Fig. 24:
BICON TPS
TPS
SA = 4.05 ±0.48

Fig. 25:
ITI TPS
TPS
SA = 4.28 ±1.37

Fig. 26:
Frialit-2 TPS
TPS
SA = 6.63 ±0.36

Fig. 27:
IMZ TPS
TPS
SA = 6.65 ±0.35

Fig. 28:
SteriOss TPS
TPS
SA = 7.14 ±0.58

Fig. 29:
BIO HORIZON D3
TPS
SA = 8.71 ±2.16

Fig. 30:
PARAGON TPS
TPS
SA = 9.90 ±1.06

Conclusion

With relation to the metrical roughness values the "classical" grouping of dental implants by type of surface treatment ("smooth", ablative, TPS and HA coated) can be confirmed. The additional value of the ratio (Sdr) as a hybrid parameter including both spatial and amplitude aspects of the surface could not be confirmed in this study. However wide topographical differences of the surfaces require an additional visualisation of the surface. 


This poster was submitted by Dr. med. Dr. med. dent. Bilal Al-Nawas.

Correspondence address:
Dr. med. Dr. med. dent. Bilal Al-Nawas
Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie
Universitätsklinik Mainz
Augustusplatz 2
D-55131 Mainz