Next Article in Journal
Review of the Application of Graphene-Based Coatings as Anticorrosion Layers
Next Article in Special Issue
Surface Modified Techniques and Emerging Functional Coating of Dental Implants
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Shellac Treatment on Wood Hygroscopicity, Dimensional Stability and Thermostability
Previous Article in Special Issue
Oxygen Plasma Improved Shear Strength of Bonding between Zirconia and Composite Resin
Article

Assessment of the Chemical Composition in Different Dental Implant Types: An Analysis through EDX System

1
Research Centre in Dental Sciences (CICO), Department of Integral Adults Dentistry, Dental School, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco 4811230, Chile
2
Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Temuco 4780000, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Coatings 2020, 10(9), 882; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10090882
Received: 19 July 2020 / Revised: 4 August 2020 / Accepted: 7 August 2020 / Published: 14 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Surface Functionalization of Implant Materials)
The use of dental implants has been increasing in the last years; however, their chemical composition is an important issue due to the fact that the implant surface may suffer a corrosion process, allowing the possibility of ions being released and resulting in a possible biological response. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the morphological analysis of the surface and chemical composition of different implant types through an energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDX) system. Eight dental implant models from different manufacturers were analyzed using variable pressure scanning electron microscopy (VP-SEM) and EDX. The chemical composition and general characteristics of the structural morphology in different dental implant surfaces were analyzed randomly. Nitrogen was identified in two samples, while zirconium was observed in only one model. Aluminium was identified in five samples ranging between 4% and 11% of its composition. Regarding the morphological characteristics, two samples from the same manufacturer had the most irregular surface designed to increase the contact surface, while the others revealed their surfaces with roughness at the micrometric level with no major irregularities. In conclusion, despite the morphology of implants being similar in most of the analyzed samples, more than 50% of them, which are brands of implants available on the market, showed aluminium on the implant surface. Finally, STR (Bone level, Roxolid), DENT (Superline) and NEO (Helix GM) could be considered, among the analyzed samples, the safest implants from the point of view that no aluminium was detected in their chemical composition. View Full-Text
Keywords: dental implants; biocompatible materials; spectrometry; X-ray emission; microscopy; electron; scanning dental implants; biocompatible materials; spectrometry; X-ray emission; microscopy; electron; scanning
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Dias, F.J.; Fuentes, R.; Navarro, P.; Weber, B.; Borie, E. Assessment of the Chemical Composition in Different Dental Implant Types: An Analysis through EDX System. Coatings 2020, 10, 882. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10090882

AMA Style

Dias FJ, Fuentes R, Navarro P, Weber B, Borie E. Assessment of the Chemical Composition in Different Dental Implant Types: An Analysis through EDX System. Coatings. 2020; 10(9):882. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10090882

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dias, Fernando J., Ramón Fuentes, Pablo Navarro, Benjamin Weber, and Eduardo Borie. 2020. "Assessment of the Chemical Composition in Different Dental Implant Types: An Analysis through EDX System" Coatings 10, no. 9: 882. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10090882

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop