Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2016-09-14, 10:12:26 | version 1.38.0
| research 14 implants 3 2016 become the globally established treatment alterna- tive to purely prosthetic solutions for tooth loss. And withthevarietyofimplantsystemsoffered,ithasbe- comeevermoredifficultforthedentisttochoosejust the right system for his or her practice and patients. Specific surface topographies, material properties thatpromoteosseointegrationorsurfacetreatments are often emphasised in advertising as significant advantages to distinguish a given system from its many competitors. Background and aim The surface of a dental implant determines the initial phases of the biological response to the implant and affects its ability to integrate into the surrounding tissue.3 The surface structure should support the process of osseointegration, especially when using highly sophisticated surgical augmen- tation techniques such as those required in the highly atrophic maxilla. Inrecentyears,therefore,severalworkinggroups and implant manufacturers have presented a mul- titude of techniques for micromorphological struc- turing of implant surfaces in order to improve success rates.4-6 To a large extent, osteoblast prolif- eration and differentiation at the implant surface willdependonthemicrostructureofthatsurface.7, 8 Surface modifications are realised through additive or subtractive treatment of the titanium-implants. Sandblasting and etching procedures in combina- tionorasasingletreatmentareestablishedasstate- of-the-art manufacturing processes. Since the early 1990s, endosseous titanium implants have been examined for residue9 that may be related to the manufacturing process or to product-specific handling subsequent to the production process.10 Theaimofthisstudywastopresenttopographicef- fects of the different manufacturing processes and toanalysepotentialimpuritiesonimplantsmadeof titanium and its alloys. Methods and materials Among the group of 135 implants from 95 differ- ent manufacturers and suppliers, a few samples wereone-pieceimplantswhichsetthefocusonthis article. All implants were analysed by means of dif- ferent techniques: Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) enabled topical evaluation, backscattered electron imaging (BSE) allows the drawing of con- clusions about the chemical nature (density) and allocation of the different residues and contami nations on the sample material. Elements with an atomic number lower than that of titanium (and, hence,lesselectronbackscattering)appeardarkerin the material contrast image (Fig. 1). The qualitative and quantitative elemental analysis of the implant surfaces, the energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), uses the X-rays emitted by a sample to deter- mine its elemental composition. The implants were fixedonthesampleholdertoallowasystematicscan reaching approximately one third of the implants surface in a viewing angle of 120 degrees (Fig.1). Fig. 7 Fig. 10 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 5: ANEW (Dentatus), x500. – Fig. 6: ANEW (Dentatus), x2,500. – Fig. 7: Qualitative elemental area analysis at x2,500. – Fig. 8: ROOTT (TRATE), x500. – Fig. 9: ROOTT (TRATE), x2,500. – Fig. 10: Qualita- tive elemental area analysis at x2,500. 32016