Surgical implant finishing and sterilization procedures were investigated to determine surface characteristics of unalloyed titanium (Ti). All specimens initially were cleaned with phosphoric acid and divided into five groups for comparisons of different surface treatments (C = cleaned as above, no
Surface energy characterization of unalloyed titanium implants
β Scribed by Kilpadi, Deepak V. ;Lemons, Jack E.
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1994
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 642 KB
- Volume
- 28
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0021-9304
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
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 of surface energy. The effects of surface treatment, bulk grain size, and surface roughness on the critical surface tension of unalloyed titanium (Ti) were examined. Radio frequency glow discharge-treated Ti had the highest critical surface tension, followed by the passivated and heat-sterilized conditions. Titanium with no surface treatment had the lowest critical surface tension. The surface energy of Ti with an average grain size of 23 pm was not significantly different from that with a grain size of 70 pm. Surface roughness was shown to cause significant difference in measurements and definitely should be considered in studies of this kind.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
## 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 wi
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