We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Esthetic Dentistry  (English Edition)



Forgotten password?


Int J Esthet Dent 7 (2012), No. 1     2. Feb. 2012
Int J Esthet Dent 7 (2012), No. 1  (02.02.2012)

Page 72-92, PubMed:22319766

Surface Characterization of SLActive Dental Implants
Zinelis, Spiros / Silikas, Nick / Thomas, Andrew / Syres, Karen / Eliades, George
The aim of the study was to characterize the surface chemistry, hydration capacity, topography and roughness of the root part of a hydrophilic sandblasted and acid-etched titanium dental implant (SLActive). Implants as received (SAR), after water rinsing (SAW) and after ultrasonication in water (SAU) were subjected to x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) elemental and binding state analysis. Scanning electron microscopy plus energy dispersive x-ray microanalysis (SEM/EDX), reflection Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopy (RFTIRM) and hydration/ dehydration cycling by environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM), were performed in SAR, whereas SAU implants were subjected to 3D-optical profilometry and SEM. For all the experiments, a conventional sandblasted and acid-etched implant (SLA ) of the same manufacturer was used as control. XPS showed lower mean C content in SAR than SLA, but not significantly different. In SAW, the C and O contents were increased. Significantly reduced C and increased Ti and O contents were found in SAU. Residual Na phases, other than NaCl, were traced in all SLActive groups. SAR demonstrated higher [-OH]/O2- ratio than SLA . EDX documented higher O, Na, Cl and lower Ti content in SAR. More -OH contributions were probed on SAR in comparison with SLA by RFTI RM. Ti-O peaks assigned to anatase, rutile and amorphous phases were found in both implant groups. The ESEM study revealed a full rehydration capacity in SAR, in contrast to SLA. No differences were found in the topography of SAU and SLA implant surfaces under the SEM. However, significantly greater values in spatial and functional roughness parameters were encountered in SAU. The increased surface hydroxylated titanium content and the greater spatial and functional roughness parameters, may explain the enhanced biological activity documented for SLActive in comparison with SLA.