Comparison of Implant Surfaces of four commoly Used Implant Systems

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare surfaces of 4 dental implant systems, and to provide scientific information on the selection of implants for clinicians. METHODS: Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and MicroSpy Profile were used to study the surface properties of four implants: NobelBiocare TiUnite (3.5 x 10mm, Nobel Biocare, Goteborg, Sweden); Astra OsseoSpeed (3.1 x 11mm, Astra Tech, Molndal, Sweden); Straumann SLActive (3.3 x 10mm, Straumann, Waldenburg, Switzerland); Biomet 3i Nanotite (4x 10mm, Biomet 3i, FL, USA).Three locations (shank, tip, and neck) were chosen from each implant for the study of surface property. RESULTS: Distinct differences were found among different implants. SEM images show that NB iTiUnite surface demonstrates elevated relatively regular figure 8 shape microstructure with multiple cracks in the surface layer; Astra OsseoSpeed surface shows two phase “rock in the gravels” type of microstructure; Strauman SLActive shows irregular honeycomb structure similar to the mark made by pulling shoes off a fresh muddy surface; 3i Nanotite surface shows the smoothest surface with the least elevations and depressions among the 4 systems tested. EDS study shows that NB differs from the other 3 systems by sharply lower amount of Ti (about half) and relatively large amounts of P and O. The topography measurements showed that the nanotite surface has the lowest roughness around 0.4 um. There is also a difference in roughness at different locations of the same implants. CONCLUSION: Implant systems have distinct difference when it comes to surface properties. Further study is needed to understand whether and how these differences play a role in osseointegration. (Work supported by Rinehart foundation UMKC 0901 to RL)