| Purpose:In this study, the titanium implant surface was modified with the micro-arc oxidation treatment, controlling the processing time of the micro-arc oxidation process.The use of the relevant physical and chemical indexes to analyze the different groups of the implants, to compare with the SLA surface implants to observe and describe the surface differences in morphology and structure,surface structural features. Make the appreciate data supports for the cytology and zoology experiments.Methods:50 mechanical surface titanium implants were randomly divided into A, B, C, D, E five groups (n= 10).The implants surfaces of the A、B and C groups were modified with the MAO treatment with the electrolyte solution rich in Calcium acetate and sodium dihydrogen phosphate. The treatment time were as follows:A:10min;B: 20min;C30min.The surfaces of the group D implants (The controlled experiments group) were modified with the SLA treatment. The surfaces of the group E implants (The blank control group) were obtained the mechanical surface. Complete the surface modification of the implants. The following terms were checked on each groups of implants:X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM),and the analysis of surface roughness (Ra). The three groups titanium implants which surfaces were modified with the MAO treatment under different conditions were observed and analyzed, to compare the differences between the groups. And the three groups of implants were compared with the SLA surface groups and the mechanical surface groups. The differences between them were analyzed.Results:1.The surface morphology of the A、B and C groups were changed after the MAO treatment. There were crater-like structures and interconnected pores on the surfaces. The implant surface roughness increases as the time increasing. The surface roughness (Ra) and the porosity of the implant surface show an increasing trend.2. Five groups of the implant surface roughness, respectively.1.2818±0.0410,1.3560±0.0437,1.4930±0.0478,2.0116±0.0323,0.4410±0.0065. Compared the roughness (Ra) of the A、B and C group, it has highly statistically significant (P＜0.01). It means the group C has the largest roughness (Ra) value. Compared the three groups of implants A, B and C with the D group, the difference of the roughness (Ra) has highly statistically significant (P＜0.01). Compared the three groups of implants A. B and C with the E group, the difference of the roughness (Ra) has highly statistically significant (P＜0.01).3. The surface coating containing Ca, P element in the three groups of implants A, B and C after the MAO treatment. The implant surface contained Ca, P-element content changed as the processing time changing.The three groups of implants contained Ca atomic percent content respect were 4.55±0.16、4.12±0.16、3.80±0.19, and the P atomic percent content respect were 2.16±0.16、1.53±0.11、1.89±0.14.Compare the three groups respectively,the P＜0.01,which indicates that it has significant statistics.The Ca/P ratio were 2.12±0.16、2.7±0.23、2.05±0.23.Comparing the three groups,the A and C groups,the P＞0.05, which indicates that it has no statistics.As the group B comparing with the other groups, the P＜0.01, which indicates that it has significant statistics.Conclusion:1. By means of the MAO treatment, we can effectively increase the implant surface roughness (Ra), the pore diameter and the porosity of the titanium implants.And we could obtain different surface roughness (Ra) through different processing time within a certain range. As the increase of processing time, the implant surface roughness (Ra) also get a corresponding increase.2. With the MAO treatment with the electrolyte solution rich in Calcium acetate and Sodium dihydrogen phosphate, we can obtain the oxide film rich in Ca, P-element as well as different Ca/P ratio. As the MAO processing time changed the Ca, P-element content changed within a certain range.3. Under the conditions of the experimental design, the MAO treatment could get surface roughness (Ra) of a certain increase, but still there is some differences with the SLA surface. But further study need to do to verify its cytocompatibility and osseointegration effect. |
PDF Full Text Request