Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Evaluation of surface roughness as a function of multiple blasting processing variables
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD).
Show others and affiliations
2013 (English)In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, ISSN 0905-7161, E-ISSN 1600-0501, Vol. 24, no 2, p. 238-242Article in journal (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of implant surface blasting variables, such as blasting media size, velocity, and surface coverage and their two- and three-way interaction in surface roughness parameters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Machined, grade IV titanium-alloy implants (n = 180) had their surfaces treated by a combination of 36 different blasting protocols according to the following variables: aluminum oxide blasting media particle size (50, 100, and 150 μm); velocity (75, 100, 125, and 150 m/s), and surface coverage (5, 15, 25 g/in.(2) ) (n = 5 per blasting protocol). A single 0.46 inch nozzle of the blaster was pointed at the threaded area and spaced 0.050 inches away. Surface topography (n = 5 measurements per implant) was assessed by scanning electron microscopy. Roughness parameters Sa, Sq, Sdr, and Sds were evaluated by optical interferometry. A GLM statistical model evaluated the effects of blasting variables on the surface parameters, and their two- and three-way interaction (P < 0.05). Statistical inferences for Sa and Sq were performed after a log(10) transformation to correct for data skewness. RESULTS: Prior to the log(10) transformation, Sa and Sq values for all processing groups ranged from ~0.5 to ~2.6 μm and from ~0.75 to 4 μm, respectively. Statistical inferences showed that Sa, Sq, and Sdr values were significantly dependent on blasting media, velocity, and surface coverage (all P < 0.001). Media × velocity, media × coverage, and media × velocity × coverage also significantly affected Sa, Sq, and Sdr values (P < 0.002). The highest levels were obtained with 100 μm blasting media, coverage for 5 g/in.(2) , and velocity of 100 m/s. No significant differences were observed for Sds (P > 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: The blasting variables produced different surface topography features and knowledge of their interaction could be used to tailor a desired implant surface configuration.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2013. Vol. 24, no 2, p. 238-242
Keywords [en]
aluminum oxide blasting, dental implant, surface roughness, surface topography
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-15455DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02392.xISI: 000313834500017PubMedID: 22188551Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84872655889Local ID: 16759OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-15455DiVA, id: diva2:1418976
Available from: 2020-03-30 Created: 2020-03-30 Last updated: 2024-02-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Jimbo, Ryo

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jimbo, Ryo
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 56 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf