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
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28 (2013), No. 2     15. Mar. 2013
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28 (2013), No. 2  (15.03.2013)

Page 358-365, doi:10.11607/jomi.2791, PubMed:23527375


Micrometric Characterization of the Implant Surfaces from the Five Largest Companies in Brazil, the Second Largest Worldwide Implant Market
Rosa, Marcio Borges / Albrektsson, Tomas / Francischone, Carlos Eduardo / Filho, Humberto Osvaldo Schwartz / Wennerberg, Ann
Purpose: To characterize the surface of implants from Brazilian companies by light interferometry and evaluate the level of control of the surface treatment process.
Materials and Methods: Oral implants from the five largest Brazilian companies were evaluated topographically. The surfaces of the implants were analyzed on the tops, valleys, and flanks of the threads, totaling nine measurements for each unit. The implants and results were separated in groups by their types of surface treatment and compared with wellknown international implants used as references.
Results: The implants examined presented a mean height deviation of less than 1 µm, which was considered minimally rough, except for the SIN-SW implant (1.01 µm) and the Vulcano Actives design (1.26 µm). The surface enlargement values varied considerably in relation to the reference implant, with lower values noted in the group of implants subjected to sandblasting and acid-etching and with higher values obtained in the group treated by acid-etching and anodizing. There were statistically significant differences between batches of implants from all companies assessed, indicative of a substantial variance in implant topography from one batch to another.
Conclusions: The low values of roughness found in the measurements and the differences between the values of the batches suggest that these companies should consider improving their surface treatments to achieve more uniform roughness.