An important parameter for the clinical success of dental implants is the formation
of direct contact between the implant and surrounding bone, whose quality is directly
influenced by the implant surface roughness. A screw-shaped design and a surface with
an average roughness of Sa of 1-2 µm showed a better result. The combination of
blasting and etching has been a commonly used surface treatment technique. The
versatility of this type of treatment allows for a wide variation in the procedures
in order to obtain the desired roughness.
To compare the roughness values and morphological characteristics of 04 brands of
implants, using the same type of surface treatment. In addition, to compare the
results among brands, in order to assess whether the type of treatment determines
the values and the characteristics of implant surface roughness.
Material and methods
Three implants were purchased directly from each selected company in the market,
i.e., 03 Brazilian companies (Biomet 3i of Brazil, Neodent and Titaniumfix) and 01
Korean company (Oneplant). The quantitative or numerical characterization of the
roughness was performed using an interferometer. The qualitative analysis of the
surface topography obtained with the treatment was analyzed using scanning
electron microscopy images.
The evaluated implants showed a significant variation in roughness values: Sa for
Oneplant was 1.01 µm; Titaniumfix reached 0.90 µm; implants from Neodent 0.67 µm,
and Biomet 3i of Brazil 0.53 µm. Moreover, the SEM images showed very different
patterns for the surfaces examined.
The surface treatment alone is not able to determine the roughness values and