Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 26, 2026

Impact of Fabrication Techniques and Polishing Procedures on Surface Roughness of Denture Base Resins
Published on: January 17, 2025
Evaluation of surface roughness as a function of multiple blasting processing variables
Guilherme B Valverde1, Ryo Jimbo, Hellen S Teixeira
1Department of Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
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 log(10) transformation to correct for data skewness.
Results:
Prior to the log(10) 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.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Abrasion Resistance of Concrete
One such test is the revolving disc test, where three plates...
Response Surface Methodology
The process of RSM involves several key steps:
Wood Surfacing
The equipment used in the surfacing process is a plane equipped with rotating blades. This tool efficiently smoothens the wood surface and can...
Fineness of Cement
Direct...
Methods of Medium Optimization

