Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 17, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Topographic characterisation of dental implants for commercial use
A Mendoza-Arnau1, M-F Vallecillo-Capilla, M-Á Cabrerizo-Vílchez
1University of Granada, School of Dentistry, Campus de Cartuja s/n, 18071-Granada, Spain, irosales@ugr.es.
Background:
To characterize the surface topography of several dental implants for commercial use.
Material And Methods:
Dental implants analyzed were Certain (Biomet 3i), Tissue Level (Straumann), Interna (BTI), MG-InHex (MozoGrau), SPI (Alphabio) and Hikelt (Bioner). Surface topography was ascertained using a confocal microscope with white light. Roughness parameters obtained were: Ra, Rq, Rv, Rp, Rt, Rsk and Rku. The results were analysed using single-factor ANOVA and Student-Neuman-Keuls (p<0.05) tests.
Results:
Certain and Hikelt obtained the highest Ra and Rq scores, followed by Tissue Level. Interna and SPI obtained lower scores, and MG-InHex obtained the lowest score. Rv scores followed the same trend. Certain obtained the highest Rp score, followed by SPI and Hikelt, then Interna and Tissue Level. MG-InHex obtained the lowest scores. Certain obtained the highest Rt score, followed by Interna and Hikelt, then SPI and Tissue Level. The lowest scores were for MG-InHex. Rsk was negative (punctured surface) in the MG-InHex, SPI and Tissue Level systems, and positive (pointed surface) in the other systems. Rku was higher than 3 (Leptokurtic) in Tissue Level, Interna, MG-InHex and SPI, and lower than 3 (Platykurtic) in Certain and Hikelt.
Conclusions:
The type of implant determines surface topography, and there are differences in the roughness parameters of the various makes of implants for clinical use.
