对典型种植体表面类型的轮廓仪粗糙度变异性进行直接评估。

Direct assessment of profilometric roughness variability from typical implant surface types.

作者信息

Kohles Sean S, Clark Melissa B, Brown Christopher A, Kenealy James N

机构信息

Kohles Bioengineering, Portland, Oregon 97214-5135, USA.

出版信息

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 Jul-Aug;19(4):510-6.

PMID:15346747

Abstract

PURPOSE

Protocols for quantifying the surface roughness of implants are varied and dependent upon the roughness parameter produced by the particular measurement device. The objective of this study was to examine the accuracy and precision of typical roughness characterization instruments used in the dental implant industry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The average roughness (Ra) was measured using 2 common surface characterization instruments: an interferometer and a stylus profilometer. Titanium disks were prepared to represent 4 typical dental implant surfaces: machined, acid-etched, hydroxyapatite-coated, and titanium plasma-sprayed. Repeated measurements from multiple sites on each surface were undertaken to establish statistical inferences. Qualitative images of the surfaces were also acquired using a laser scanning confocal microscope. After surface measurements were conducted, the disks were diametrically cut and cross-sectional profiles were examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) as a comparative measure of surface topography. An analysis of variance was applied to isolate the effects of the measurement site, measurement sequence, surface treatment, and instrument type on Ra values.

RESULTS

The results indicated that surface treatment (P = .0001) and instrument (P = .0001) strongly influenced Ra data. By design, measurement site (diametrical: P = .9859; area: P = .9824) and measurement sequence (P = .9990) did not influence roughness. In the assessment of individual instrument accuracy, the interferometer was the most accurate in predicting SEM-based roughness (P = .6688) compared with the stylus (P = .0839). As a measure of aggregate precision over all measurements, the most repeatable instrument was the stylus (coefficient of variation [CV] = 0.108), followed by the interferometer (CV = 0.125) and SEM (CV = 0.273).

DISCUSSION

These results indicate dependencies in accuracy and precision related to the surface characterization technique.

CONCLUSION

Instrument variability may obscure functional correlations between implant surface topography and osseointegration.

摘要

目的

用于量化种植体表面粗糙度的方案各不相同，且取决于特定测量设备所产生的粗糙度参数。本研究的目的是检验牙科种植行业中使用的典型粗糙度表征仪器的准确性和精密度。

材料与方法

使用2种常见的表面表征仪器测量平均粗糙度（Ra）：干涉仪和触针轮廓仪。制备钛盘以代表4种典型的牙科种植体表面：机械加工、酸蚀、羟基磷灰石涂层和钛等离子喷涂。对每个表面的多个部位进行重复测量以建立统计推断。还使用激光扫描共聚焦显微镜获取表面的定性图像。进行表面测量后，将圆盘沿直径方向切割，并使用扫描电子显微镜（SEM）检查横截面轮廓，作为表面形貌的比较测量。应用方差分析来分离测量部位、测量顺序、表面处理和仪器类型对Ra值的影响。

结果

结果表明，表面处理（P = .0001）和仪器（P = .0001）对Ra数据有强烈影响。按照设计，测量部位（直径方向：P = .9859；面积：P = .9824）和测量顺序（P = .9990）不影响粗糙度。在评估单个仪器的准确性时，与触针（P = .0839）相比，干涉仪在预测基于SEM的粗糙度方面最准确（P = .6688）。作为所有测量的总体精密度指标，最可重复的仪器是触针（变异系数[CV] = 0.108），其次是干涉仪（CV = 0.125）和SEM（CV = 0.273）。