Characterizations of titanium implant surfaces. III
β Scribed by Keller, John C. ;Stanford, Clark M. ;Wightman, James P. ;Draughn, Robert A. ;Zaharias, Rebecca
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1994
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 900 KB
- Volume
- 28
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0021-9304
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
Abstract
There are several reports in the literature concerning the similarities and the differences between the oxide on cpTi and Tiβ6Alβ4V alloy; however, their biological sequelae are not entirely known. In this work, a series of surface characterization techniques were used in conjunction with short term in vitro biological assays to assess the effects of materials selection (cpTi and Ti alloy) on osteoblastβlike cell responses. Surface analysis indicated that with the exception of oxide thickness, there were no significant differences in surface characteristics between the two implant materials. These results were reflected in the biological studies, where the levels of cell attachment and adaptation of the attached cells to the titanium surfaces were similar. These results are in general agreement with previous in vivo studies and continue to indicate that cpTi and Ti alloy are suitable, biologically compatible materials for fabrication of dental implants. Β© 1994 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
Osteointegration is dependent on a variety of biomechanical and biochemical factors. One factor is the wettability of an implant surface that is directly influenced by its surface energy. This investigation used the Zisman plot to determine critical surface tension as one representative measurement
## Abstract The aim of the study was to compare Ca and P formation (CaP) and subsequent bone cell response of a blasted and four different possibly bioactive commercially pure (cp) titanium surfaces; 1. Fluoride etched (Fluoride), 2. Alkaliβheat treated (AH), 3. Magnesium ion incorporated anodized
The aim of the present study was to investigate the surface topography, composition, and oxide thickness of consecutively failed, oral BrΓ₯nemark implants in order to determine possible causes for failure. The failure criterion was lack of osseointegration manifested as implant mobility. Ten implants