Galli Silvia, Jimbo Ryo, Andersson Martin, Bryington Matthew, Albrektsson Tomas
*PhD Student, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. †Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. ‡Associate Professor, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Applied Surface Chemistry, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. §Assistant Professor, Division of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, Ohio State University College of Dentistry, Columbus, OH. Current: Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, West Virginia University School of Dentistry, Morgantown, WV. ‖Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. ¶Professor, Department of Biomaterials, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Implant Dent. 2013 Oct;22(5):507-18. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e318294308f.
To characterize topographically and chemically the surfaces of 2 commercially available implants. Furthermore, to gather an overview of the clinical results of these implant systems.
Two commercially available oral implants were analyzed using optical interferometry, scanning electron microscopy, and energy dispersive spectroscopy. In addition, a literature search for all the clinical articles on the same implants was performed.
No significant differences of topographical parameters were found between the 2 implants, except for the hybrid parameter Sdr presenting significant higher values for the Ankylos implants. Both surfaces had a homogenous microporosity. At higher magnifications of scanning electron microscope images, evenly distributed nanostructures (approximately 10 nm) were visible. Chemically, mainly titanium, oxygen and carbon were detected. Fifty-six clinical articles were included for the review. The implant survival rates (minimum follow-up: 5 years) ranged between 87.7% and 100%.
The examined commercially available implants showed a moderately rough surface, with a homogenous microporosity. Nanofeatures were detected on the surface of both implants. The clinical performances of these implants were comparable to that of other commercialized implant systems.
从形貌和化学方面对两种市售种植体的表面进行表征。此外，收集这些种植体系统临床结果的概述。
使用光学干涉测量法、扫描电子显微镜和能量色散光谱法对两种市售口腔种植体进行分析。此外，对关于同一种植体的所有临床文章进行了文献检索。
除混合参数Sdr显示Ankylos种植体的值显著更高外，两种种植体之间未发现形貌参数有显著差异。两种表面均具有均匀的微孔率。在扫描电子显微镜图像的更高放大倍数下，可以看到均匀分布的纳米结构（约10纳米）。化学分析主要检测到钛、氧和碳。纳入56篇临床文章进行综述。种植体存活率（最短随访时间：5年）在87.7%至100%之间。
所检测的市售种植体表面呈中等粗糙度，具有均匀的微孔率。在两种种植体的表面均检测到纳米特征。这些种植体与其他商业化种植体系统的临床性能相当。
