English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of the present study is to compare two different implant surface chemistries of failing dental implants. Sixteen patients (mean age: 52 ± 8.27 with eight females and eight males) and 34 implants were included in the study. Group-I implants consisted of a blasted/etched surface with a final process surface, while Group-II implants consisted of the sandblasted acid etching (SLA) method. The chemical surface analysis was performed by the energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) method from coronal, middle, and apical parts of each implant. Titanium (Ti) element values were found to be 20.22 ± 15.7 at.% in Group I and 33.96 ± 13.62 at.% in Group-II in the middle of the dental implants. Aluminum (Al) element values were found to be 0.01 ± 0.002 in Group-I and 0.17 ± 0.28 at.% in Group II in the middle of the dental implants, and statistically significant differences were found between the groups for the Al and Ti elements in the middle of the dental implants ( p &lt; 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference for the Ti, Al, O, Ca, Fe, P, and Mg elements in the coronal, middle, and apical parts of the implants in the intragroup evaluation ( p &lt; 0.05). It is reported that different parts of the implants affected by peri-implant inflammation show different surface chemistries, from coronal to apical, but there is no difference in the implants with different surfaces.

Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial