Original Research Article
Year: 2020 | Month: October | Volume: 7 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 454-461
Dental Implant Surface: Driving Force for Successful Osseointegration
Amit Bhandari1, Vanshika Jain2, Neha Vats3, Rashi Bhandari4, Anshu Goyal5, Vanya Srivastav6
1Head, 2Junior Research Fellow, 3Junior Research Fellow (Former employee),
Department of Dental Research and Implantology, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences, Defence Research and Development Organization, Timarpur, Delhi 110054
4BDS, Private practitioner, Timarpur, Delhi 110054
5Scientist D, 6Scientist E,
Solid State Physics Laboratory, Defence Research and Development Organization, Timarpur, Delhi 110054
Corresponding Author: Vanshika Jain
ABSTRACT
Background: Surface characteristics have shown to influence the osseointegration property of dental implants. Surface alterations are done with an aim of providing rougher surface to induce better cell adhesion and intimate implant-to-bone contact. Aim: To analyze the surface characteristics of Indident Dental Implant system and to compare its surface properties with three commercial dental implant systems. Objective: To study the surface topography and chemical composition of four commercially available dental implant systems.
Materials and Methods: Surface characterization of four implant systems was studied using optical profilometry, scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The analysis was done in two regions; valley and top. Values and peaks obtained were studied to derive comparison and propose reasons for success.
Result: Optical profilometry showed variation in implant surface roughness at amongst different location in the same implant system as well as within different implant systems. Roughest surface was observed for Indident and AB implant systems, the findings of which were consistent with those of SEM images for the respective systems. SEM analysis of Indident Implant showed amorphous pattern over the complete implant surface, whereas in case of AB and Bio Horizon, top region showed different morphology compared to the valley. Nobel Biocare sample showed difference in morphology compared to rest of the implant systems. EDX and XPS findings also correlated with those found via SEM analysis.
Keywords: Dental Implants; Scanning Electron Microscopy; Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy; X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy; Optical Imaging
[PDF Full Text]