Editorial Type:
Article Category: Other
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Feb 2015

Relationship Between the Surface Chemical Composition of Implants and Contact With the Substrate

,
PhD,
PhD, and
PhD
Page Range: 17 – 21
DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00227
Save
Download PDF

The purpose of the study was to use scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry to assess possible morphologic and chemical changes after performing double-insertion and pullout tests of implants of different shapes and surface treatments. Four different types of implants were used—cylindrical machined-surface implants, cylindrical double-surface–treated porous implants, cylindrical surface-treated porous implants, and tapered surface-treated porous implants—representing a total of 32 screws. The implants were inserted into synthetic bone femurs, totaling 8 samples, before performing each insertion with standardized torque. After each pullout the implants were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry using a universal testing machine and magnified 35 times. No structural changes were detected on morphological surface characterization, only substrate accumulation. As for composition, there were concentration differences in the titanium, oxygen, and carbon elements. Implants with surface acid treatment undergo greater superficial changes in chemical composition than machined implants, that is, the greater the contact area of the implant with the substrate, the greater the oxide layer change. In addition, prior manipulation can alter the chemical composition of implants, typically to a greater degree in surface-treated implants.

<bold>
  <sc>Figures</sc>
  1
  <sc>and</sc>
  2.
</bold>
Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. (a) Cylindrical machined-surface implants after the first extraction. (b) Cylindrical machined-surface implants after the second extraction. Figure 2. (a) Cylindrical double-surface–treated porous implant after the first extraction. (b) Cylindrical double-surface–treated porous implant after the second extraction.


<bold>
  <sc>Figures</sc>
  3
  <sc>and</sc>
  4.
</bold>
Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3. (a) Cylindrical machined-surface implants spectrometry results after the first pullout test. (b) Cylindrical machined-surface implants spectrometry results after the second pullout test. Figure 4. (a) Cylindrical double-surface–treated porous implant spectrometry results after the first pullout test. (b) Cylindrical double-surface–treated porous implant spectrometry after the second pullout test.


Contributor Notes

Corresponding author, e-mail: andreare73@yahoo.com.br
  • Download PDF