Abstract

VIEIRA, Ronan Miranda; NAMEN, Fátima Maria  and  GALAN JUNIOR, João. Characterization of the surfaces of dental implants commercial in scanning electron microscopy: energy dispersive spectroscopy. RGO, Rev. gaúch. odontol. (Online) [online]. 2013, vol.61, n.1, pp. 27-39. ISSN 1981-8637.

Objective To characterize different implant systems morphologically and chemically. Methods Six totally pure titanium implants were standardized for size (length, diameter and platform), as follows: Osseotite® (Biomet 3i, São Paulo, Brazil - surface treated with acid), Timatax® (Neodent®, Curitiba, Brazil - surface treated with grit-blasting and acid), Máster Porous® (Conexão Sistema de Próteses, Arujá, Brazil - surface treated with acid), Externo Laser® (Serson® Implant, São Paulo, Brazil - surface treated with laser), Revolution® (Sin, São Paulo, Brazil - surface treated with acid) and External Hex® (Titanium Fix, São José dos Campos, Brazil - surface treated with grit-blasting). For all makes, two implants were analyzed with surfaces modified via grit-blasting and/or acid-etching and laser bombardment.   Results The implants Titamax® and External Hex (Titanium Fix, São José dos Campos, Brazil) exhibited characteristics of roughness through the blasting of particles, and OSSEOTITE®, Revolution® Implant (Sin, São Paulo, Brazil) and porous Master® (Connection System Prostheses, Aruja, Brazil) had porous characteristics analyzed by a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). The only implant surface that did not change was the External Hex Laser® (Serson® Implant, São Paulo, Brazil). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov identified only one difference at a level of significance of 0.07 (p = 0.07) between the implants External Laser® (Serson® Implant, São Paulo, Brazil) and Timatax® (Neodent®, Curitiba, Brazil) compared to the others studied. Conclusion It may be concluded that the analysis of the samples showed an increase in impurities after surface modification, the surface treatment influenced the changes in surface morphology and modifications in the presence of contaminants, there were morphological differences between implants from different manufacturers. The elements found suggest that implants have shortcomings with regard to the final cleaning process before marketing.

Keywords : Anatomy & Histology; Dental implants; Scanning Electron Microscopy.