Evaluation of surface roughness as a function of multiple blasting processing variables

Guilherme B. Valverde, Ryo Jimbo, Hellen S. Teixeira, Estevam A. Bonfante, Malvin N. Janal, Paulo Coelho

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: This study evaluated the effect of implant surface blasting variables, such as blasting media size, velocity, and surface coverage and their two- and three-way interaction in surface roughness parameters. Material and methods: Machined, grade IV titanium-alloy implants (n = 180) had their surfaces treated by a combination of 36 different blasting protocols according to the following variables: aluminum oxide blasting media particle size (50, 100, and 150 μm); velocity (75, 100, 125, and 150 m/s), and surface coverage (5, 15, 25 g/in.2) (n = 5 per blasting protocol). A single 0.46 inch nozzle of the blaster was pointed at the threaded area and spaced 0.050 inches away. Surface topography (n = 5 measurements per implant) was assessed by scanning electron microscopy. Roughness parameters Sa, Sq, Sdr, and Sds were evaluated by optical interferometry. A GLM statistical model evaluated the effects of blasting variables on the surface parameters, and their two- and three-way interaction (P < 0.05). Statistical inferences for Sa and Sq were performed after a log10 transformation to correct for data skewness. Results: Prior to the log10 transformation, Sa and Sq values for all processing groups ranged from ~0.5 to ~2.6 μm and from ~0.75 to 4 μm, respectively. Statistical inferences showed that Sa, Sq, and Sdr values were significantly dependent on blasting media, velocity, and surface coverage (all P < 0.001). Media × velocity, media × coverage, and media × velocity × coverage also significantly affected Sa, Sq, and Sdr values (P < 0.002). The highest levels were obtained with 100 μm blasting media, coverage for 5 g/in.2, and velocity of 100 m/s. No significant differences were observed for Sds (P > 0.15). Conclusions: The blasting variables produced different surface topography features and knowledge of their interaction could be used to tailor a desired implant surface configuration.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)238-242
Number of pages5
JournalClinical Oral Implants Research
Volume24
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2013

Fingerprint

Interferometry
Aluminum Oxide
Statistical Models
Titanium
Particle Size
Electron Scanning Microscopy

Keywords

  • Aluminum oxide blasting
  • Dental implant
  • Surface roughness
  • Surface topography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Evaluation of surface roughness as a function of multiple blasting processing variables. / Valverde, Guilherme B.; Jimbo, Ryo; Teixeira, Hellen S.; Bonfante, Estevam A.; Janal, Malvin N.; Coelho, Paulo.

In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, 02.2013, p. 238-242.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Valverde, Guilherme B. ; Jimbo, Ryo ; Teixeira, Hellen S. ; Bonfante, Estevam A. ; Janal, Malvin N. ; Coelho, Paulo. / Evaluation of surface roughness as a function of multiple blasting processing variables. In: Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2013 ; Vol. 24, No. 2. pp. 238-242.
@article{9eb5c3b632d2446597d08626fc5b95ff,
title = "Evaluation of surface roughness as a function of multiple blasting processing variables",
abstract = "Objectives: This study evaluated the effect of implant surface blasting variables, such as blasting media size, velocity, and surface coverage and their two- and three-way interaction in surface roughness parameters. Material and methods: Machined, grade IV titanium-alloy implants (n = 180) had their surfaces treated by a combination of 36 different blasting protocols according to the following variables: aluminum oxide blasting media particle size (50, 100, and 150 μm); velocity (75, 100, 125, and 150 m/s), and surface coverage (5, 15, 25 g/in.2) (n = 5 per blasting protocol). A single 0.46 inch nozzle of the blaster was pointed at the threaded area and spaced 0.050 inches away. Surface topography (n = 5 measurements per implant) was assessed by scanning electron microscopy. Roughness parameters Sa, Sq, Sdr, and Sds were evaluated by optical interferometry. A GLM statistical model evaluated the effects of blasting variables on the surface parameters, and their two- and three-way interaction (P < 0.05). Statistical inferences for Sa and Sq were performed after a log10 transformation to correct for data skewness. Results: Prior to the log10 transformation, Sa and Sq values for all processing groups ranged from ~0.5 to ~2.6 μm and from ~0.75 to 4 μm, respectively. Statistical inferences showed that Sa, Sq, and Sdr values were significantly dependent on blasting media, velocity, and surface coverage (all P < 0.001). Media × velocity, media × coverage, and media × velocity × coverage also significantly affected Sa, Sq, and Sdr values (P < 0.002). The highest levels were obtained with 100 μm blasting media, coverage for 5 g/in.2, and velocity of 100 m/s. No significant differences were observed for Sds (P > 0.15). Conclusions: The blasting variables produced different surface topography features and knowledge of their interaction could be used to tailor a desired implant surface configuration.",
keywords = "Aluminum oxide blasting, Dental implant, Surface roughness, Surface topography",
author = "Valverde, {Guilherme B.} and Ryo Jimbo and Teixeira, {Hellen S.} and Bonfante, {Estevam A.} and Janal, {Malvin N.} and Paulo Coelho",
year = "2013",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02392.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "238--242",
journal = "Clinical Oral Implants Research",
issn = "0905-7161",
publisher = "Blackwell Munksgaard",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of surface roughness as a function of multiple blasting processing variables

AU - Valverde, Guilherme B.

AU - Jimbo, Ryo

AU - Teixeira, Hellen S.

AU - Bonfante, Estevam A.

AU - Janal, Malvin N.

AU - Coelho, Paulo

PY - 2013/2

Y1 - 2013/2

N2 - Objectives: This study evaluated the effect of implant surface blasting variables, such as blasting media size, velocity, and surface coverage and their two- and three-way interaction in surface roughness parameters. Material and methods: Machined, grade IV titanium-alloy implants (n = 180) had their surfaces treated by a combination of 36 different blasting protocols according to the following variables: aluminum oxide blasting media particle size (50, 100, and 150 μm); velocity (75, 100, 125, and 150 m/s), and surface coverage (5, 15, 25 g/in.2) (n = 5 per blasting protocol). A single 0.46 inch nozzle of the blaster was pointed at the threaded area and spaced 0.050 inches away. Surface topography (n = 5 measurements per implant) was assessed by scanning electron microscopy. Roughness parameters Sa, Sq, Sdr, and Sds were evaluated by optical interferometry. A GLM statistical model evaluated the effects of blasting variables on the surface parameters, and their two- and three-way interaction (P < 0.05). Statistical inferences for Sa and Sq were performed after a log10 transformation to correct for data skewness. Results: Prior to the log10 transformation, Sa and Sq values for all processing groups ranged from ~0.5 to ~2.6 μm and from ~0.75 to 4 μm, respectively. Statistical inferences showed that Sa, Sq, and Sdr values were significantly dependent on blasting media, velocity, and surface coverage (all P < 0.001). Media × velocity, media × coverage, and media × velocity × coverage also significantly affected Sa, Sq, and Sdr values (P < 0.002). The highest levels were obtained with 100 μm blasting media, coverage for 5 g/in.2, and velocity of 100 m/s. No significant differences were observed for Sds (P > 0.15). Conclusions: The blasting variables produced different surface topography features and knowledge of their interaction could be used to tailor a desired implant surface configuration.

AB - Objectives: This study evaluated the effect of implant surface blasting variables, such as blasting media size, velocity, and surface coverage and their two- and three-way interaction in surface roughness parameters. Material and methods: Machined, grade IV titanium-alloy implants (n = 180) had their surfaces treated by a combination of 36 different blasting protocols according to the following variables: aluminum oxide blasting media particle size (50, 100, and 150 μm); velocity (75, 100, 125, and 150 m/s), and surface coverage (5, 15, 25 g/in.2) (n = 5 per blasting protocol). A single 0.46 inch nozzle of the blaster was pointed at the threaded area and spaced 0.050 inches away. Surface topography (n = 5 measurements per implant) was assessed by scanning electron microscopy. Roughness parameters Sa, Sq, Sdr, and Sds were evaluated by optical interferometry. A GLM statistical model evaluated the effects of blasting variables on the surface parameters, and their two- and three-way interaction (P < 0.05). Statistical inferences for Sa and Sq were performed after a log10 transformation to correct for data skewness. Results: Prior to the log10 transformation, Sa and Sq values for all processing groups ranged from ~0.5 to ~2.6 μm and from ~0.75 to 4 μm, respectively. Statistical inferences showed that Sa, Sq, and Sdr values were significantly dependent on blasting media, velocity, and surface coverage (all P < 0.001). Media × velocity, media × coverage, and media × velocity × coverage also significantly affected Sa, Sq, and Sdr values (P < 0.002). The highest levels were obtained with 100 μm blasting media, coverage for 5 g/in.2, and velocity of 100 m/s. No significant differences were observed for Sds (P > 0.15). Conclusions: The blasting variables produced different surface topography features and knowledge of their interaction could be used to tailor a desired implant surface configuration.

KW - Aluminum oxide blasting

KW - Dental implant

KW - Surface roughness

KW - Surface topography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872655889&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84872655889&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02392.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02392.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 22188551

AN - SCOPUS:84872655889

VL - 24

SP - 238

EP - 242

JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research

JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research

SN - 0905-7161

IS - 2

ER -