Characterizing three-dimensional topography of engineering and biomaterial surfaces by confocal laser scanning and stylus techniques.

Three-dimensional measurements of surface topography were performed using a confocal laser scanner and a contact stylus instrument. Three surfaces known to be difficult to evaluate were chosen to be measured on the same area with the two instruments. The measurements from the optical and the contact stylus profilometer were compared with each other and with measurements obtained from high-resolution atomic force microscopy, which served as a reference instrument. Six implants manufactured from commonly used biomaterials were also measured on the same part of the implant, but not on the same area, with the optical and the contact profilometer in order to simulate the measurements that would be performed when different laboratories measure similarly treated surfaces. The numerical and visual differences achieved when measuring the same area with the two instruments investigated were compared. In general, we found an underestimation of the surface features with the contact stylus measurement and an overestimation with the confocal scanner. The stylus readings are mainly influenced by the radius of the stylus tip, the pressure of the stylus tip on the surface, and the hardness of the material. The optical profilometer has a tendency for creating spikes when surfaces with deep slopes are measured. For relatively soft metallic biomaterials, we found that using the optical instrument is the most appropriate method for surface roughness characterization, particularly when screw-shaped implants are analysed, whereas the stylus is preferred when larger areas with substantial slopes within the surface structure are to be evaluated.

[1]  D. Bonnell,et al.  Scanning tunnelling microscopy and tunnelling spectroscopy of titanium before and afterin vitro immersion , 1992 .

[2]  B. Kasemo,et al.  Preparation and surface spectroscopic characterization of oxide films on Ti6Al4V , 1989 .

[3]  P. Morberg On bone tissue reactions to acrylic cement , 1991 .

[4]  D Buser,et al.  Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. , 1991, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[5]  S. Hansson,et al.  Surface analysis of four dental implant systems. , 1993, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[6]  C. Voigt,et al.  Incorporation and degradation of hydroxyapatite implants of different surface roughness and surface structure in bone. , 1990, Scanning microscopy.

[7]  Smith Dc Dental implants: materials and design considerations. , 1993 .

[8]  Carina B. Johansson,et al.  On tissue reactions to metal implants , 1991 .

[9]  D van Steenberghe,et al.  The influence of surface free energy and surface roughness on early plaque formation. An in vivo study in man. , 1990, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[10]  Claude Tricot,et al.  Fractal analysis of worn surfaces , 1994 .

[11]  Ann Wennerberg,et al.  A histomorghometric study of screw‐shaped and removal torque titanium implants with three different surface topographies , 1995 .

[12]  H. Hansson,et al.  Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. , 1981, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[13]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  An animal study of c.p. titanium screws with different surface topographies , 1995 .

[14]  K. J. Stout,et al.  Atlas of Machined Surfaces , 1990 .

[15]  Håkan Mattsson,et al.  Surface spectroscopic characterization of titanium implant materials , 1990 .

[16]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Design and surface characteristics of 13 commercially available oral implant systems. , 1993, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[17]  David J. Whitehouse,et al.  Handbook of Surface Metrology , 2023 .

[18]  K. Søballe,et al.  Hydroxyapatite ceramic coating for bone implant fixation. Mechanical and histological studies in dogs. , 1993, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica. Supplementum.

[19]  A. V. von Recum,et al.  Surface characterization of microtextured silicone. , 1992, Biomaterials.

[20]  J C Keller,et al.  Optimization of surface micromorphology for enhanced osteoblast responses in vitro. , 1993, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[21]  J. Baguet,et al.  Imaging surfaces of hydrophilic contact lenses with the atomic force microscope. , 1993, Biomaterials.

[22]  On three-dimensional measurement of surface roughness , 1991 .

[23]  T Albrektsson,et al.  Experimental study of turned and grit-blasted screw-shaped implants with special emphasis on effects of blasting material and surface topography. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[24]  C. Stanford,et al.  Characterizations of titanium implant surfaces. III. , 1994, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[25]  C. Klauber,et al.  Oxide thickness and surface contamination of six endosseous dental implants determined by electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis: a preliminary report. , 1990, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.