Three‐Dimensional Topographic and Metrologic Evaluation of Dental Implants by Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy

Abstract

We can confirm the "classic" grouping of dental implants by type of surface treatment into the groups minimally rough, ablative, TPS coated, and HA coated as these treatments lead to different ascending Sas; however, the additional value of the ratio Sdr including both spatial and amplitude aspects of the surface could not be confirmed in this study. Functional parameters describing the topographic differences are still lacking.

Ten‐Year Retrospective Follow‐Up Study of the TiOblast™ Dental Implant

“…The connection between fixture and abutment is conical; the upper part of the abutment has a 20° angled cone. The surface is moderately rough and has an Sa value (average surface roughness parameter) of 1.10 µm 9,10 …”

Comparison of growth & function of endothelial progenitor cells cultured on deproteinized bovine bone modified with covalently bound fibronectin and bound vascular endothelial growth factor

“…For that, 30 CLSM fluorescence images for each material taken at different randomized locations (Objective HC PL APO 10x/0.40 IMM CS, field of view 1.5 mm × 1.5 mm) showing good representative distribution of cells were evaluated. Detailed descriptions of the procedure followed for performing the CLSM technique were presented earlier (Al‐Nawas and Götz, ).…”

Implantateinheilung

“…Die Abbildungen 4a bis 4c zeigen exemplarisch unterschiedliche Modifikationen der Titanoberflächen kommerzieller, dentaler Implantate (rasterelektronenmikroskopische Aufnahmen, 1500-fache Vergrößerung). Etablierte und von unserem Zentrum routinemä-ßig durchgeführte Untersuchungsmethoden zur Charakterisierung von Implantatoberflächen sind neben Bestimmungen der Implantatoberflächentopographie mit Erhebung von Rauhigkeitsparametern [2,3] …”