Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 30, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Surface characteristics of electrochemically oxidized implants and acid-etched implants: surface chemistry,
Young-Taeg Sul1, Eungsun Byon, Ann Wennerberg
1Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden. young-taeg.sul@biomaterials.gu.se
Purpose:
This study was undertaken to investigate surface properties of surface-modified titanium implants in terms of surface chemistry, morphology, pore characteristics, oxide thickness, crystal structure, and roughness.
Materials And Methods:
An oxidized, custom-made Mg implant, an oxidized commercially available implant (TiUnite), and a dual acid-etched surface (Osseotite) were investigated. Surface characteristics were evaluated with various surface analytic techniques.
Results:
Surface chemistry showed similar fingerprints of titanium oxide and carbon contaminant in common for all implants but also revealed essential differences of the elements such as about 9 at% Mg for the Mg implant, about 11 at% P for the TiUnite implant and about 12 at% Na for the Osseotite implant. Surface morphology of the Mg and TiUnite implants demonstrated a duplex oxide structure, ie, an inner barrier layer without pores and an outer porous layer with numerous pores, whereas the Osseotite implant revealed a crystallographically etched appearance with pits. The diameter and depth of pores/pits was < or = 2 microm and < or = 1.5 microm in the Mg implant, < or = 4 microm and < or = 10 microm in the TiUnite implant, and < or = 2 microm and < or = 1 microm in the Osseotite implant, respectively. Oxide layer revealed homogeneous thickness, about 3.4 microm of all threads in the Mg implants. On the contrary, TiUnite showed heterogeneous oxide thickness, about 1 to 11 microm, which gradually increased with thread numbers. Crystal structure showed a mixture of anatase and rutile phase for the Mg implants. With respect to roughness, Sa showed 0.69 microm in the Mg implant, 1.35 microm in the TiUnite implant, and 0.72 microm in the Osseotite implant.
Conclusions:
Well-defined surface characterization may provide a scientific basis for a better understanding of the effects of the implant surface on the biological response. The surface-engineered implants resulted in various surface characteristics, as a result of different manufacturing techniques.
