dc.contributorUniv Guarulhos
dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2014-02-26T17:22:34Z
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-20T13:45:09Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-05T14:10:30Z
dc.date.available2014-02-26T17:22:34Z
dc.date.available2014-05-20T13:45:09Z
dc.date.available2022-10-05T14:10:30Z
dc.date.created2014-02-26T17:22:34Z
dc.date.created2014-05-20T13:45:09Z
dc.date.issued2005-07-01
dc.identifierJournal of Periodontology. Chicago: Amer Acad Periodontology, v. 76, n. 7, p. 1092-1099, 2005.
dc.identifier0022-3492
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/15868
dc.identifier10.1902/jop.2005.76.7.1092
dc.identifierWOS:000230774200007
dc.identifier6443430122330366
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/3891004
dc.description.abstractBackground: the failure of osseointegration in oral rehabilitation has gained importance in current literature and in clinical practice. The integration of titanium dental implants in alveolar bone has been partly ascribed to the biocompatibility of the implant surface oxide layer. The aim of this investigation was to analyze the surface topography and composition of failed titanium dental implants in order to determine possible causes of failure.Methods: Twenty-one commercially pure titanium (cpTi) implants were retrieved from 16 patients (mean age of 50.33 +/- 11.81 years). Fourteen implants were retrieved before loading (early failures), six after loading (late failures), and one because of mandibular canal damage. The failure criterion was lack of osseointegration characterized as dental implant mobility. Two unused implants were used as a control group. All implant surfaces were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive spectrometer x-ray (EDS) to element analysis. Evaluations were performed on several locations of the same implant.Results: SEM showed that the surface of all retrieved implants consisted of different degrees of organic residues, appearing mainly as dark stains. The surface topography presented as grooves and ridges along the machined surface similar to control group. Overall, foreign elements such as carbon, oxygen, sodium, calcium, silicon, and aluminum were detected in failed implants. The implants from control group presented no macroscopic contamination and clear signs of titanium.Conclusion: These preliminary results do not suggest any material-related cause for implant failures, although different element composition was assessed between failed implants and control implants.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherAmer Acad Periodontology
dc.relationJournal of Periodontology
dc.relation3.392
dc.relation1,408
dc.rightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectcomparison studies
dc.subjectdental implants, failure
dc.subjectmicroscopy, electron, scanning
dc.subjectosseointegration
dc.subjectperi-implant diseases
dc.subjecttitanium
dc.subjectx-rays, spectrometry, energy-dispersive
dc.titleAnalysis of failed commercially pure titanium dental implants: A scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive spectrometer X-ray study
dc.typeArtigo


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución