Variation in surface texture measurements
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Surface texture influences cellular response to implants, implant wear, and fixation, yet measurement and reporting of surface texture can be confusing and ambiguous. Seven specimens of widely different surface textures were submitted to three internationally renowned laboratories for surface texture characterization. The specimens were from dental implants, orthopedic implants, and femoral heads. Areas to be measured were clearly marked; simplified instructions were supplied but specific measurement parameters were not requested. Techniques used included contact profilometry, two‐ and three‐dimensional laser profilometry, and atomic force microscopy. Four to thirteen parameters were reported, 2D or 3D, including Ra or Sa; only three were common to all centers. The results varied by as much as ±300–1000%, depending on technique and surface type. Some surfaces were not measurable by some techniques. One dental implant surface was reported with Ra of 0.17, 0.85, 1.9, and 4.4 μm. The CoCr femoral head ranged from an Ra of 0.011 to 0.10 μm; the zirconia head from 0.006 to 0.05 μm. Similar variability was reported for the other parameters. Useful surface texture characterization requires reporting of all measurement parameters. Comparisons between studies may be compromised if differences in technique are not considered. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 70B: 262–269, 2004
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Dental materials and restorations
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199911)47:2<139::AID-JBM4>3.0.CO;2-210.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199911)47:2<139::AID-JBM4>3.0.CO;2-2 ↗
2. 10.1016/0142-9612(86)90083-910.1016/0142-9612(86)90083-9 ↗
3. 10.1243/EMED_JOUR_1987_016_035_0210.1243/EMED_JOUR_1987_016_035_02 ↗
4. 10.1243/PIME_PROC_1995_209_353_0210.1243/PIME_PROC_1995_209_353_02 ↗
5. 10.1002/jbm.82029121310.1002/jbm.820291213 ↗
6. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(1999)48:4<440::AID-JBM7>3.0.CO;2-510.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(1999)48:4<440::AID-JBM7>3.0.CO;2-5 ↗
7. 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00002.x10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00002.x ↗
8. 10.2106/00004623-196143050-0000610.2106/00004623-196143050-00006 ↗
9. WennerbergA.On surface roughness and implant incorporation[dissertation]. Göteborg: Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research Göteborgs Universitet;1996. p125.
10. Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces
11. Stout KJ · 1993
12. 10.1016/1350-4533(95)00005-410.1016/1350-4533(95)00005-4 ↗
13. 10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00045-210.1016/S0021-9290(00)00045-2 ↗
14. 10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00085-910.1016/S0021-9290(01)00085-9 ↗
15. 10.1302/0301-620X.84B8.1259810.1302/0301-620X.84B8.12598 ↗
16. 10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00096-810.1016/S0021-9290(00)00096-8 ↗
17. 10.1002/jor.110014031610.1002/jor.1100140316 ↗
18. 10.1016/S0883-5403(98)90201-710.1016/S0883-5403(98)90201-7 ↗
19. 10.1007/BF0012027510.1007/BF00120275 ↗
20. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199602)30:2<251::AID-JBM16>3.0.CO;2-P10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199602)30:2<251::AID-JBM16>3.0.CO;2-P ↗
21. 10.1016/0142-9612(96)00032-410.1016/0142-9612(96)00032-4 ↗
22. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199801)39:1<77::AID-JBM10>3.0.CO;2-L10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199801)39:1<77::AID-JBM10>3.0.CO;2-L ↗
23. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(2000)53:1<111::AID-JBM15>3.0.CO;2-Y10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(2000)53:1<111::AID-JBM15>3.0.CO;2-Y ↗
24. 10.1016/S0883-5403(98)80002-810.1016/S0883-5403(98)80002-8 ↗
25. 10.1243/095441198153381810.1243/0954411981533818 ↗
26. 10.1023/A:100897960856310.1023/A:1008979608563 ↗
27. Thomas TR
28. DIN.Measurement of surface roughness parametersRk Rpk Rvk Mr1 Mr2for the description of the material portion in the roughness. German Standard DIN.