Publication Type : Journal Article
Publisher : Journal of Oral Implantology, Allen Press Inc
Source : Journal of Oral Implantology, Allen Press Inc., Volume 41, Number 5, p.e183-e188 (2015)
Campus : Kochi
School : School of Dentistry
Department : Prosthodontics & Implantology
Year : 2015
Abstract : This study compared the surface topography, hydrophilicity, and bioactivity of titanium implants after 3 different surface treatments (sandblasting and acid etching, modified sandblasting and acid etching, and thermal oxidation) with those of machined implants. One hundred indigenously manufactured threaded titanium implants were subjected to 3 methods of surface treatment. The surface roughness of the nontreated (Group A) and treated samples (Groups B through D) was evaluated with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and profilometer. The wettability was visually examined using a colored dye solution. The calcium ions attached to the implant surface after immersing in simulated body fluid (SBF) were assessed on days 1, 2, and 7 with an atomic electron spectroscope. The data were analyzed statistically. The SBF test allowed the precipitation of a calcium phosphate layer on all surface-treated samples, as evidenced in the SEM analysis. A significantly higher amount of calcium ions and increased wettability were achieved in the thermally oxidized samples. The mean roughness was significantly lower in Group A (0.85 ± 0.07) compared to Group B (1.35 ± 0.17), Group C (1.40 ± 0.14), and Group D (1.36 ± 0.18). The observations from this in vitro study indicated that surface treatment of titanium improved the bioactivity. Moreover, results identified the implants that were sandblasted, acid etched, and then oxidized attracted more calcium ions.
Cite this Research Publication : A. Kumar, Bhatt, Vb, Balakrishnan, Mc, Hashem, Mde, Vellappally, Sd, Kheraif, A. AfAl, Halawany, H. Sgh, Abraham, N. Bg, Jacob, Vg, and Anil, Sh, “Bioactivity and surface characteristics of titanium implants following various surface treatments: An in vitro study”, Journal of Oral Implantology, vol. 41, pp. e183-e188, 2015.