中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版)
中華口腔醫學研究雜誌(電子版)
중화구강의학연구잡지(전자판)
CHINESE JOURNAL OF STOMATOLOGICAL RESEARCH(ELECTRONIC VERSION)
2014年
5期
376-381
,共6页
王敬旭%丁祥龙%容明灯%赵红宇%周磊
王敬旭%丁祥龍%容明燈%趙紅宇%週磊
왕경욱%정상룡%용명등%조홍우%주뢰
钛%喷砂%激光%酸蚀%纳米管
鈦%噴砂%激光%痠蝕%納米管
태%분사%격광%산식%납미관
Titanium%Sandblast%Laser%Acid etching%Nanotubes
目的研究激光酸蚀联合纳米管与喷砂酸蚀(SLA)的钛种植体表面粗化处理方法,分析比较不同表面理化特性的差异。方法自制表面光滑钛种植体分两组:一组依次采用LT-G20W光纤激光打标机轰击、18%盐酸和49%硫酸的混合物酸蚀、阳极氧化法制纳米管3个工序联合粗化光滑面的纯钛种植体表面;另一组依次采用喷砂(Al2O3颗粒)、18%盐酸和49%硫酸的混合物酸蚀法2个工序粗化钛金属表面。通过扫描电镜(SEM)观察两种植体表面形貌;应用表面电子探针(EPMA)对种植体表面的元素组成和元素化合状态进行分析;应用3D表面形貌仪在白光共聚焦扫描模式下对种植体表面粗糙度进行测试分析。并对两者的表面形貌、化学组分、表面粗糙度等指标进行比较分析。结果成功制备两种粗化的钛种植体表面。激光酸蚀联合纳米管表面的粗糙度大于SLA表面的粗糙度。激光酸蚀联合纳米管组:轮廓算术平方差Ra=(8.19±0.09)μm,轮廓各点高度均方根Rq=(10.64±2.10)μm,轮廓最大峰高度Rt=(43.42±6.18)μm;SLA组:Ra=(2.09±0.13)μm,Rq=(2.70±0.18)μm,Rt=(15.36±0.50)μm,两者统计学差异具有统计学意义(tRa=-16.709,tRq=-9.206, tRt=-10.178,P<0.05);激光酸蚀联合纳米管组的表面清洁;SLA组表面可见尖锐的边缘,散在的一些Al2O3颗粒。结论采用激光酸蚀联合纳米管与SLA的钛表面处理方法均可以获得粗糙表面,前者较后者更为清洁规则,粗糙度更高,可控性更好。
目的研究激光痠蝕聯閤納米管與噴砂痠蝕(SLA)的鈦種植體錶麵粗化處理方法,分析比較不同錶麵理化特性的差異。方法自製錶麵光滑鈦種植體分兩組:一組依次採用LT-G20W光纖激光打標機轟擊、18%鹽痠和49%硫痠的混閤物痠蝕、暘極氧化法製納米管3箇工序聯閤粗化光滑麵的純鈦種植體錶麵;另一組依次採用噴砂(Al2O3顆粒)、18%鹽痠和49%硫痠的混閤物痠蝕法2箇工序粗化鈦金屬錶麵。通過掃描電鏡(SEM)觀察兩種植體錶麵形貌;應用錶麵電子探針(EPMA)對種植體錶麵的元素組成和元素化閤狀態進行分析;應用3D錶麵形貌儀在白光共聚焦掃描模式下對種植體錶麵粗糙度進行測試分析。併對兩者的錶麵形貌、化學組分、錶麵粗糙度等指標進行比較分析。結果成功製備兩種粗化的鈦種植體錶麵。激光痠蝕聯閤納米管錶麵的粗糙度大于SLA錶麵的粗糙度。激光痠蝕聯閤納米管組:輪廓算術平方差Ra=(8.19±0.09)μm,輪廓各點高度均方根Rq=(10.64±2.10)μm,輪廓最大峰高度Rt=(43.42±6.18)μm;SLA組:Ra=(2.09±0.13)μm,Rq=(2.70±0.18)μm,Rt=(15.36±0.50)μm,兩者統計學差異具有統計學意義(tRa=-16.709,tRq=-9.206, tRt=-10.178,P<0.05);激光痠蝕聯閤納米管組的錶麵清潔;SLA組錶麵可見尖銳的邊緣,散在的一些Al2O3顆粒。結論採用激光痠蝕聯閤納米管與SLA的鈦錶麵處理方法均可以穫得粗糙錶麵,前者較後者更為清潔規則,粗糙度更高,可控性更好。
목적연구격광산식연합납미관여분사산식(SLA)적태충식체표면조화처리방법,분석비교불동표면이화특성적차이。방법자제표면광활태충식체분량조:일조의차채용LT-G20W광섬격광타표궤굉격、18%염산화49%류산적혼합물산식、양겁양화법제납미관3개공서연합조화광활면적순태충식체표면;령일조의차채용분사(Al2O3과립)、18%염산화49%류산적혼합물산식법2개공서조화태금속표면。통과소묘전경(SEM)관찰량충식체표면형모;응용표면전자탐침(EPMA)대충식체표면적원소조성화원소화합상태진행분석;응용3D표면형모의재백광공취초소묘모식하대충식체표면조조도진행측시분석。병대량자적표면형모、화학조분、표면조조도등지표진행비교분석。결과성공제비량충조화적태충식체표면。격광산식연합납미관표면적조조도대우SLA표면적조조도。격광산식연합납미관조:륜곽산술평방차Ra=(8.19±0.09)μm,륜곽각점고도균방근Rq=(10.64±2.10)μm,륜곽최대봉고도Rt=(43.42±6.18)μm;SLA조:Ra=(2.09±0.13)μm,Rq=(2.70±0.18)μm,Rt=(15.36±0.50)μm,량자통계학차이구유통계학의의(tRa=-16.709,tRq=-9.206, tRt=-10.178,P<0.05);격광산식연합납미관조적표면청길;SLA조표면가견첨예적변연,산재적일사Al2O3과립。결론채용격광산식연합납미관여SLA적태표면처리방법균가이획득조조표면,전자교후자경위청길규칙,조조도경고,가공성경호。
Objective To compare the difference of titanium surfaces treated by laser/etch/nanotubes and sandblast/etch technique . Methods Two types of implant surfaces were fabricated by laser/acid etching/nanotubes (LAN) and sandblasting/acid etching (SLA) technique. The first group was treated by combination of laser spraying/18% HCl + 49% H2SO4 etching/anodization, the second group was treated by combination of Al2O3 particle sandblasting/18% HCl + 49% H2SO4 etching. The morphology, roughness and elemental composition were measured with scanning electron microscopy , EPMA and 3D surface topography instrument, respectively. Results Two types of rough implant surfaces were successfully fabricated by the two above mentioned treatment methods . The surface roughness of LAN group was larger than the SLA group (LAN:Ra=8.19 ± 0.09μm, Rq=10.64 ± 2.10 μm, Rt=43.42 ± 6.18 μm; SLA:Ra=2.09 ± 0.13 μm, Rq=2.70 ± 0.18 μm, Rt=15.36 ± 0.50 μm)(tRa=-16.709, tRq=-9.206,tRt=-10.178,P < 0.05). The surface of LAN was clean, while a few of oxide aluminum particles still existed on the surface of SLA . Conclusion Both LAN and SLA method can produce rough surfaces. The surfaces fabricated by LAN method appeared to be rougher, cleaner, with more regular structures and more controllable than SLA surfaces .