We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Implant surface topographies analyzed using fractal dimension.
Implant Dentistry 2011 April
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the fractal dimension (Df) of disks with 3 different surface topographies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty disk-shaped samples (10 × 2 mm) with 3 different surface topographies (Dental Tech, Misinto, Italy) were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy: group A, machined surface; group B, titanium plasma-spray surface; group C, acid-etched and sandblasted surface (Blasted Wrinkled Surface).
RESULTS: The amplitude roughness parameter (Sa) of the machined surfaces was 0.6 μm, while the developed surface area ratio (Sdr) was 14%; for the titanium plasma-spray surfaces, the values were, respectively, 5.3 μm and 97%, and for the Blasted Wrinkled Surfaces, 1.5 μm and 63%. Images at 1.000, 20.000, and 50.000 magnifications were processed for quantitative analysis of Df using the box-counting method. At 1.000×, Df for group A, B, and C was 1.86, 1.80, and 1.81, respectively; at 20.000×, Df for group A, B, and C was 1.85, 1.71, 1.58, respectively; and at 50.000×, Df was 1.83, 1.61, and 1.51 for A, B, and C groups. Statistically significant differences were found for Df values.
CONCLUSIONS: Df provides not only an index of roughness size values but also a measure of roughness spatial organization; therefore, it could be a promising method to differentiate between rough surfaces capable of supporting osseointegration.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty disk-shaped samples (10 × 2 mm) with 3 different surface topographies (Dental Tech, Misinto, Italy) were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy: group A, machined surface; group B, titanium plasma-spray surface; group C, acid-etched and sandblasted surface (Blasted Wrinkled Surface).
RESULTS: The amplitude roughness parameter (Sa) of the machined surfaces was 0.6 μm, while the developed surface area ratio (Sdr) was 14%; for the titanium plasma-spray surfaces, the values were, respectively, 5.3 μm and 97%, and for the Blasted Wrinkled Surfaces, 1.5 μm and 63%. Images at 1.000, 20.000, and 50.000 magnifications were processed for quantitative analysis of Df using the box-counting method. At 1.000×, Df for group A, B, and C was 1.86, 1.80, and 1.81, respectively; at 20.000×, Df for group A, B, and C was 1.85, 1.71, 1.58, respectively; and at 50.000×, Df was 1.83, 1.61, and 1.51 for A, B, and C groups. Statistically significant differences were found for Df values.
CONCLUSIONS: Df provides not only an index of roughness size values but also a measure of roughness spatial organization; therefore, it could be a promising method to differentiate between rough surfaces capable of supporting osseointegration.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app