Evaluation of surface roughness as a function of multiple blasting processing variables

DSpace Repository

Evaluation of surface roughness as a function of multiple blasting processing variables

Show full item record

Files for download

Find Full text There are no files associated with this item.


Simple item record

Publication Article, peer reviewed scientific
Title Evaluation of surface roughness as a function of multiple blasting processing variables
Author(s) Valverde, Guilherme B. ; Jimbo, Ryo ; Teixeira, Hellen S. ; Bonfante, Estevam Augusto ; Janal, Malvin N. ; Coelho, Paulo
Date 2013
English abstract
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.
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02392.x (link to publisher's fulltext)
Publisher Wiley
Host/Issue Clinical Oral Implants Research;2
Volume 24
ISSN 1600-0501
Pages 238–242
Language eng (iso)
Subject(s) aluminum oxide blasting
dental implant
surface roughness
surface topography
Research Subject Categories::ODONTOLOGY
Handle http://hdl.handle.net/2043/16759 (link to this page)

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record



My Account