Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial

The aim of the present study is to compare two different implant surface chemistries of failing dental implants. Sixteen patients (mean age: 52 ± 8.27 with eight females and eight males) and 34 implants were included in the study. Group-I implants consisted of a blasted/etched surface with a final p...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Berceste Guler, Ahu Uraz, Hasan Hatipoğlu, Mehmet Yalım
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2021-02-01
Series:Materials
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/14/4/986
id doaj-d430d8569b734b8a8f5860a5b221e796
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d430d8569b734b8a8f5860a5b221e7962021-02-20T00:06:31ZengMDPI AGMaterials1996-19442021-02-011498698610.3390/ma14040986Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical TrialBerceste Guler0Ahu Uraz1Hasan Hatipoğlu2Mehmet Yalım3Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Kütahya Health Sciences University, 43100 Kütahya, TurkeyDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, 06500 Ankara, TurkeyDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Kütahya Health Sciences University, 43100 Kütahya, TurkeyDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, 06500 Ankara, TurkeyThe aim of the present study is to compare two different implant surface chemistries of failing dental implants. Sixteen patients (mean age: 52 ± 8.27 with eight females and eight males) and 34 implants were included in the study. Group-I implants consisted of a blasted/etched surface with a final process surface, while Group-II implants consisted of the sandblasted acid etching (SLA) method. The chemical surface analysis was performed by the energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) method from coronal, middle, and apical parts of each implant. Titanium (Ti) element values were found to be 20.22 ± 15.7 at.% in Group I and 33.96 ± 13.62 at.% in Group-II in the middle of the dental implants. Aluminum (Al) element values were found to be 0.01 ± 0.002 in Group-I and 0.17 ± 0.28 at.% in Group II in the middle of the dental implants, and statistically significant differences were found between the groups for the Al and Ti elements in the middle of the dental implants (<i>p</i> < 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference for the Ti, Al, O, Ca, Fe, P, and Mg elements in the coronal, middle, and apical parts of the implants in the intragroup evaluation (<i>p</i> < 0.05). It is reported that different parts of the implants affected by peri-implant inflammation show different surface chemistries, from coronal to apical, but there is no difference in the implants with different surfaces.https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/14/4/986dental implantsurface propertiesphotoelectron spectroscopyperi-implantitis
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Berceste Guler
Ahu Uraz
Hasan Hatipoğlu
Mehmet Yalım
spellingShingle Berceste Guler
Ahu Uraz
Hasan Hatipoğlu
Mehmet Yalım
Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial
Materials
dental implant
surface properties
photoelectron spectroscopy
peri-implantitis
author_facet Berceste Guler
Ahu Uraz
Hasan Hatipoğlu
Mehmet Yalım
author_sort Berceste Guler
title Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial
title_short Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial
title_full Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial
title_fullStr Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial
title_sort chemical evaluation of energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy analysis of different failing dental implant surfaces: a comparative clinical trial
publisher MDPI AG
series Materials
issn 1996-1944
publishDate 2021-02-01
description The aim of the present study is to compare two different implant surface chemistries of failing dental implants. Sixteen patients (mean age: 52 ± 8.27 with eight females and eight males) and 34 implants were included in the study. Group-I implants consisted of a blasted/etched surface with a final process surface, while Group-II implants consisted of the sandblasted acid etching (SLA) method. The chemical surface analysis was performed by the energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) method from coronal, middle, and apical parts of each implant. Titanium (Ti) element values were found to be 20.22 ± 15.7 at.% in Group I and 33.96 ± 13.62 at.% in Group-II in the middle of the dental implants. Aluminum (Al) element values were found to be 0.01 ± 0.002 in Group-I and 0.17 ± 0.28 at.% in Group II in the middle of the dental implants, and statistically significant differences were found between the groups for the Al and Ti elements in the middle of the dental implants (<i>p</i> < 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference for the Ti, Al, O, Ca, Fe, P, and Mg elements in the coronal, middle, and apical parts of the implants in the intragroup evaluation (<i>p</i> < 0.05). It is reported that different parts of the implants affected by peri-implant inflammation show different surface chemistries, from coronal to apical, but there is no difference in the implants with different surfaces.
topic dental implant
surface properties
photoelectron spectroscopy
peri-implantitis
url https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/14/4/986
work_keys_str_mv AT bercesteguler chemicalevaluationofenergydispersivexrayspectroscopyanalysisofdifferentfailingdentalimplantsurfacesacomparativeclinicaltrial
AT ahuuraz chemicalevaluationofenergydispersivexrayspectroscopyanalysisofdifferentfailingdentalimplantsurfacesacomparativeclinicaltrial
AT hasanhatipoglu chemicalevaluationofenergydispersivexrayspectroscopyanalysisofdifferentfailingdentalimplantsurfacesacomparativeclinicaltrial
AT mehmetyalım chemicalevaluationofenergydispersivexrayspectroscopyanalysisofdifferentfailingdentalimplantsurfacesacomparativeclinicaltrial
_version_ 1724260024655544320