Premium
Evaluation of surface roughness as a function of multiple blasting processing variables
Author(s) -
Valverde Guilherme B.,
Jimbo Ryo,
Teixeira Hellen S.,
Bonfante Estevam A.,
Janal Malvin N.,
Coelho Paulo G.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02392.x
Subject(s) - surface roughness , rock blasting , materials science , surface finish , mathematics , optics , statistics , analytical chemistry (journal) , geometry , composite material , physics , engineering , geotechnical engineering , chemistry , chromatography
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 S a, S q, S dr, and S ds 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 S a and S q were performed after a log 10 transformation to correct for data skewness. Results Prior to the log 10 transformation, S a and S q 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 S a, S q, and S dr 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 S a, S q, and S dr 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 S ds ( 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.