The Study On Properties Of Surfaces Of Titanium Implants Treated By Different Roughing Methods

Surface treatment was an simple effective method of surface modification. The roughness treatment of titanium implant surface could improve the bone bonding and increase the success rate of implant. But the difference of diverse treatments was still unknown. In this study we compared several pysio-chemical properties such as themicrostructure, surface contamination and surface energy, water contact angle and corrosion resistance on Polished Treatment(PT) and Sandblasting with Alumina(SA), Sandblasting with Aluminia and Acid-etched(SAA), Sandblasting with Titanium Acid-etched(STA), Electro-erosion Treatment(EE) four different roughness treatments surface by Scanning Electron Microscopy(SEM), Energy disperse spectrometer (EDS) , contact angle test instruction and inductively coupled plasma (ICP). Some biological characters, for example, albumen adsorption, cell culture, animal test were also applied to investigate the effects of different surface on protein and cell adherence, on implant-bone bonding.The result of SEM showed that surface showed irregularities after roughness treatments and the surface properties of different roughness treatments had some distinctions, SAA and SA had some sharply edges and protrutions, the STA showed regular pattern like honeycomb, but the EE treated by electric erosion exhibited the deeper pores with different sizes and the pores with a secondary structure were perforation。 The EDSindicated that the surface existed contamination after the treatment of foreign materials, the SA surface had some embedded contaminations even after acid etching. Water contact angle indicated that there was no significant difference after 30 second, but there was different after 10 second. The result of ICP further confirmed exsistence of contaminations on SAA and SA, and different surfaces of titanium implants showed the different corrosion resistance by the examination of ICP. Albumen adsorption indicated that there was no significant divergence among the different implant surfaces, but the EE surface showed the higher amount of protein. Cell culture research prompted that different treatments had no significant different effects on the growth rate of cell, but the expression of ALP on EE surfaces was higher than others on 6 days. Push-out test displayed that the implant-bone bonding increase with the time, and roughness surfaces was a higher implant-bone bonding than the smooth surface. Among the roughness surfaces, EE surfaces showed the highest shear strength at the 2 and 3 months.The above results indicated that different roughness treatments had the different effects on the alterations of surface microstructure, surface chemical component, surface energy, which provided good evidence for us to understand the following biological responses from the biomaterial aspects. From the Albumen adsorption to the cell adherence to the bone tissue growth, the courses were affected by implant surface physio-chemical properties. The effects of surface roughness treatments on biological characters were helpful to find the fittest implant roughness in clinic. Comparatively, the EE surface could provide a better roughness structures that was beneficial to bone bonding, and it might be a implant surface treatment to use in clinic.