LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 19 , Issue 4
July/August 2004

Pages 510516


Direct Assessment of Profilometric Roughness Variability from Typical Implant Surface Types

Sean S. Kohles, PhD/Melissa B. Clark, MS/Christopher A. Brown, PhD/James N. Kenealy, PharmD


PMID: 15346747

Purpose: Protocols for quantifying the surface roughness of implants are varied and dependent upon the roughness parameter produced by the particular measurement device. The objective of this study was to examine the accuracy and precision of typical roughness characterization instruments used in the dental implant industry. Materials and Methods: The average roughness (Ra) was measured using 2 common surface characterization instruments: an interferometer and a stylus profilometer. Titanium disks were prepared to represent 4 typical dental implant surfaces: machined, acid-etched, hydroxyapatite- coated, and titanium plasma-sprayed. Repeated measurements from multiple sites on each surface were undertaken to establish statistical inferences. Qualitative images of the surfaces were also acquired using a laser scanning confocal microscope. After surface measurements were conducted, the disks were diametrically cut and cross-sectional profiles were examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) as a comparative measure of surface topography. An analysis of variance was applied to isolate the effects of the measurement site, measurement sequence, surface treatment, and instrument type on Ra values. Results: The results indicated that surface treatment (P = .0001) and instrument (P = .0001) strongly influenced Ra data. By design, measurement site (diametrical: P = .9859; area: P = .9824) and measurement sequence (P = .9990) did not influence roughness. In the assessment of individual instrument accuracy, the interferometer was the most accurate in predicting SEM-based roughness (P = .6688) compared with the stylus (P = .0839). As a measure of aggregate precision over all measurements, the most repeatable instrument was the stylus (coefficient of variation [CV] = 0.108), followed by the interferometer (CV = 0.125) and SEM (CV = 0.273). Discussion: These results indicate dependencies in accuracy and precision related to the surface characterization technique. Conclusion: Instrument variability may obscure functional correlations between implant surface topography and osseointegration. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS 2004;19:510516


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help