Comparative analysis of elemental composition between dental implants with different microgeometry using an energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscope
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Accepted: 23 June 2024
Authors
Background The microgeometry of dental implants has undergone a great evolution to enhance the osseointegration, thereby the survival of implants. The present study was done to compare the surface chemistry of sandblasted acid-etched and anodized titanium dental implants.
Materials and Methods SLA (n=3), SLActive (n=3) and TiUnite (n=3) were evaluated for chemical composition in terms of atomic percentage (at.%) and weight percentage (wt.%) of the elements using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscope (EDX). Atomic and weight percentages were compared between the three implants by ANOVA and pairwise comparison by Tukey’s HSD post hoc test.
Results A statistically significant difference in at.% and wt.% of Titanium (Ti), Oxygen (O), Carbon (C), Sodium (Na), Chlorine (Cl) and Phosphorus (P) between the three implants with the p value of 0.000. Also, there was a statistically significant difference between SLA and SLActive for Ti, O, C, Na, Cl (p=0.000), between SLA and TiUnite for Ti, O, C, P (p=0.000), between SLActive and TiUnite for all the elements (p=0.000) in terms of at.% and wt.%
Conclusion Chemical composition of anodized dental implants differ from sandblasted acid-etched implants due to the electrochemical oxidation process.
Downloads
Citations
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
