|
KMID : 0362420090470010012
|
|
Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
2009 Volume.47 No. 1 p.12 ~ p.20
|
|
|
Ettability of titanium implants depending upon surface properies
|
|
Han Young-Soo
Shin Sang-Wan
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Statement of problem: When an implant is fixed, a fixture comes into contact with a tissue fluid. Adhesion of a tissue fluid to a surface of implant is various case by case.
Purpose: The ultimate goal of this work is to analyze a correlation between a surface roughness and wettability of implant specimens. A measurement for wettability is performed considering 4 types of specimen implant with surface treatments different from each other to investigate the change of wettability with the elapse of time.
Material and methods: Firstly, 20 specimens of titanium were prepared. The specimen were made of a commercial Titanium Grade IV with the diameter of 10 mm and the thickness of 1 mm. According to the method of surface treatment, the specimens were classified into 4 groups of 5 specimens per group. Group A: Machined Surface Group B: Anodized surface Group C: RBM (HA blasting) surface Group D: CMP (calcium methaphosphate) coating surface. Surface roughness of specimen was measured using SV-3000S4 (Mituyoto, Japan). The measurement was based on the standard of JIS1994. Sessile drop method was used to measure the wettability, which measures contact angle between implant disc
and saline with the time interval of 5, 10, and 15 seconds. SPSS 11.0 was used to analyze the collected data. In order to analyze the difference of wettability and surface roughness according to implant surface treatment method. The statistical significance was tested with the confidence level of 95%. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation of surface roughness and wettability. Results: The difference of surface roughness was statistically significant in the order of Group C (1.69 ± 0.26), Group D (1.58 ± 0.16), Group B (0.78 ± 0.14) Group A (0.18 ± 0.05). The wettability has also a statistically significant difference, which was in the order of group B (17.70 ± 2.66), Group C (27.86 ± 4.52), Group D (66.28 ± 3.70) Group A (70.52 ± 8.00). There was no difference in wettability with the passage of time.
Conclusions: 1. The surface roughness was high in the order of RBM, CMP, Anodized, Machined group (P < .05). 2. The wettability was high in the order of Anodized, RBM, CMP, Machined group (P < .05). 3. There was no statistical significance in the correlation of surface roughness and wettability.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Wettability, Surface roughness, Sessile drop method
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
 
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
 
|
|