Kournetas N, Spintzyk S, Schweizer E, Sawada T, Said F, Schmid P, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Eliades G, Rupp F
Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Athens, Greece.
University Hospital Tübingen, Section Medical Materials Science & Technology, Tübingen, Germany.
Dent Mater. 2017 Aug;33(8):e317-e327. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.04.020. Epub 2017 Jun 3.
Comparability of topographical data of implant surfaces in literature is low and their clinical relevance often equivocal. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of scanning electron microscopy and optical interferometry to assess statistically similar 3-dimensional roughness parameter results and to evaluate these data based on predefined criteria regarded relevant for a favorable biological response.
Four different commercial dental screw-type implants (NanoTite Certain Prevail, TiUnite Brånemark Mk III, XiVE S Plus and SLA Standard Plus) were analyzed by stereo scanning electron microscopy and white light interferometry. Surface height, spatial and hybrid roughness parameters (Sa, Sz, Ssk, Sku, Sal, Str, Sdr) were assessed from raw and filtered data (Gaussian 50μm and 5μm cut-off-filters), respectively. Data were statistically compared by one-way ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test. For a clinically relevant interpretation, a categorizing evaluation approach was used based on predefined threshold criteria for each roughness parameter.
The two methods exhibited predominantly statistical differences. Dependent on roughness parameters and filter settings, both methods showed variations in rankings of the implant surfaces and differed in their ability to discriminate the different topographies. Overall, the analyses revealed scale-dependent roughness data. Compared to the pure statistical approach, the categorizing evaluation resulted in much more similarities between the two methods.
This study suggests to reconsider current approaches for the topographical evaluation of implant surfaces and to further seek after proper experimental settings. Furthermore, the specific role of different roughness parameters for the bioresponse has to be studied in detail in order to better define clinically relevant, scale-dependent and parameter-specific thresholds and ranges.
文献中种植体表面地形数据的可比性较低，其临床相关性往往不明确。本研究的目的是调查扫描电子显微镜和光学干涉测量法评估统计学上相似的三维粗糙度参数结果的能力，并根据被认为与良好生物学反应相关的预定义标准来评估这些数据。
通过立体扫描电子显微镜和白光干涉测量法分析四种不同的商用牙科螺钉型种植体（NanoTite Certain Prevail、TiUnite Brånemark Mk III、XiVE S Plus和SLA Standard Plus）。分别从原始数据和滤波数据（高斯50μm和5μm截止滤波器）中评估表面高度、空间和混合粗糙度参数（Sa、Sz、Ssk、Sku、Sal、Str、Sdr）。通过单因素方差分析和Tukey-Kramer事后检验对数据进行统计学比较。为了进行临床相关解释，基于每个粗糙度参数的预定义阈值标准，采用了一种分类评估方法。
这两种方法主要表现出统计学差异。取决于粗糙度参数和滤波器设置，两种方法在种植体表面的排名上都显示出差异，并且在区分不同地形的能力上也有所不同。总体而言，分析揭示了与尺度相关的粗糙度数据。与纯统计方法相比，并分类评估使两种方法之间的相似性更多。
本研究建议重新考虑当前种植体表面地形评估的方法，并进一步寻求合适的实验设置。此外，必须详细研究不同粗糙度参数对生物反应的具体作用，以便更好地定义临床相关的、与尺度相关的和参数特定的阈值和范围。
