Titanium implant surfaces characterization after different surface treatments

Background: Titanium implant surfaces are modified to provide additional osseointegration, which increase adhesion and osteoblastic matrix-production on implant surfaces. The present study investigated four different implant surfaces of the same brand, comparing the surface conditions under FEI Nova 200 field emission gun scanning electron microscope (FEG-SEM), equipped with EDAX energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) and X-ray diffraction (XRD). Aim/Hypothesis: The aim of this study was to characterize the implant surfaces after four different treatments in terms of chemical composition, morphology and topography of the retentive titanium surfaces. Materials and Methods: The implants evaluated in the present study were separated into four groups, depending on the surface treatment. As a control group, maCHINAd titanium surfaces were also evaluated. Group 1 was composed of 5 titanium discs with maCHINAd Ti surfaces. Group 2 was composed of 5 titanium discs chemically treated with HCl. Group 3 was composed of 5 titanium discs chemically treated with Citric Acid. Group 4 was composed of 5 titanium discs chemically treated with HCl, followed by an industrial treatment. Group 5 was composed of 5 titanium discs chemically treated with Citric Acid, followed by an industrial treatment. All surfaces were analyzed by FEI Nova 200 field emission gun scanning electron microscope (FEG-SEM), equipped with EDAX energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) using a Bruker D8 Discover diffractometer equipped with a Cu Kα radiation source. Results: XRD results showed that independently of the chemical treatment, the hard Al2O3 ceramic particles were retained into ductile Ti surface. Moreover, the machining marks were not distinguishable after the sandblasting and the different chemical treatments. Untreated Titanium discs revealed to be smoother and with no additional surface retentive characteristics. Also, minor differences between the HCl and Citric Acid treatments were revealed, both with and without the industrial post-treatment. Between the samples with industrial post-treatment, there were significant changes on the titanium surfaces. The EDS analysis revealed similar chemical composition between the samples treated with HCl and Citric Acid. But there were noticeable differences between the above and the samples with the undisclosed additional treatment. The presence of Na was detected, as well as traces of Si, on the latter samples. Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Our results suggest that the implant surface morphology provided by Acid treatment increases retention features on the above. No significant differences between the treatments with HCl and Citric Acid were revealed. The undisclosed additional treatment to the implant surface revealed a different morphology as well as different chemical composition. This could provide better osseointegration and better clinical performance, although further clinical trials are necessary to verify this hypothesis. Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Klockner(R) for providing the titanium discs for the tests. Keywords: implant surface, surface morphology, surface modification, scanning electron microscopy, osseointegration