Characterisation of Titanium Dental Implants I: Critical Assessment of Surface Roughness Parameters

Abstract

Titanium is commonly used for dental implants because of its unique ability to get incorporated into living bone. There is an ongoing development to obtain better anchorage and surface properties such as roughness and chemical composition are modified to reach this. In this study titanium dental implant surfaces were characterised by recording the topographical changes induced by each individual processing step such as cleaning, blasting, and HF etching. To fully describe the different surfaces, the same point was analysed before and after each step using Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and 3D-Scanning Electron Microscopy (3D-SEM). A set of 3D surface parameters were calculated as a function of filter size to describe the topographic features at different levels. The chemical treatment introduces nano-sized features while blasting changes the topography at the micrometer level and by combining AFM and 3D-SEM the entire range can be assessed. The results show that the chemically induced changes in the topography can only be revealed by AFM while 3D-SEM gives a clear description of the topography of blasted surfaces. The fractal dimension for the chemically treated surface was the same as for the blasted surfaces but crossover size was much smaller. Besides the commonly used S a parameter it is suggested that the root-mean-square of the surface slope (S dq ) and the void volume (V vc ) parameters are included in the characterisation of rough surfaces. These parameters can be used for correlation with in vivo performance.

UV-nanoimprint lithography and large area roll-to-roll texturization with hyperbranched polymer nanocomposites for light-trapping applications

“…Refs. [32,33]). The SEM (FEI XL30-SFEG) was operated in ultra-high resolution mode (UHR), using an acceleration voltage of 5 kV.…”

Characterisation of Titanium Dental Implants. II: Local Biomechanical Model~!2009-09-02~!2009-11-20~!2010-04-28~!

“…Assume that the total surface area considered is A and that the area occupied by pits with slope angles exceeding 30° is A sh . Then the 2D and 3D interfacial shear strength is given by expressions (16) and (17) respectively.…”

“…However the characterisation of surface roughness by means of surface roughness parameters has been called in question since topographically very different surfaces can have the same values of a number of roughness parameters [15]. However, a *Address correspondence to this author at the Astra Tech AB, SE-431 21 Mölndal, Sweden; Tel: +46 31 776 30 00; Fax: +46 31 366 83 80; E-mail: Stig.Hansson@astratech.com study showed that by using complementary techniques and surface parameters, surfaces with similar topographies can be separated [16]. An evaluation regarding different surface roughness parameters' validity for describing dental implant surfaces can be found elsewhere [16].…”

“…However, a *Address correspondence to this author at the Astra Tech AB, SE-431 21 Mölndal, Sweden; Tel: +46 31 776 30 00; Fax: +46 31 366 83 80; E-mail: Stig.Hansson@astratech.com study showed that by using complementary techniques and surface parameters, surfaces with similar topographies can be separated [16]. An evaluation regarding different surface roughness parameters' validity for describing dental implant surfaces can be found elsewhere [16]. In a theoretical study Hansson [17], found no uniform correlation between the values of a number of surface roughness parameters and estimated interfacial shear strength.…”

“…The assumption of isotropic surface roughness applies particularly for blasted and etched surfaces, which are common on dental implants [16].…”