Surface Analysis of Machined Versus Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Titanium Implants
Giovanna Orsini, DDS, Bartolomeo Assenza, MD, DDS, Antonio Scarano, DDS, Maurizio Piattelli, MD, DDS, Adriano Piattelli, MD, DDS
PMID: 11151575
Initially, implant surface analyses were performed on 10 machined implants and on 10 sandblasted and acid-etched implants. Subsequently, sandblasted and acid-etched implant cytotoxicity (using L929 mouse fibroblasts), morphologic differences between cells (osteoblast-like cells MG63) adhering to the machined implant surfaces, and cell anchorage to sandblasted and acid-etched implant surfaces were evaluated. Results indicated that acid etching with 1% hydrofluoric acid/30% nitric acid after sandblasting eliminated residual alumina particles. The average roughness (Ra) of sandblasted and acid-etched surfaces was about 2.15 ìm. Cytotoxicity tests showed that sandblasted and acid-etched implants had non-cytotoxic cellular effects and appeared to be biocompatible. Scanning electron microscopic examination showed that the surface roughness produced by sandblasting and acid etching could affect cell adhesion mechanisms. Osteoblast-like cells adhering to the machined implants presented a very flat configuration, while the same cells adhering to the sandblasted and acid-etched surfaces showed an irregular morphology and many pseudopodi. These morphologic irregularities could improve initial cell anchorage, providing better osseointegration for sandblasted and acid-etched implants. (INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2000;15:779-784) Key words: acid etching, cellular morphology, dental implants, immunologic cytotoxicity tests, surface properties
| © 2022 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc |
JOMI Home Current Issue Ahead of Print Archive Author Guidelines About |
Accepted Manuscripts Submission Form Submit Reprints Permission Advertising |
Quintessence Home Terms of Use Privacy Policy About Us Contact Us Help |
