Objectives: This study aimed to understand the influence of implant macrodesign over the topography and roughness of implants and to investigate the level of control in the treatment process. Materials and Methods: Implants of different designs and produced in two distinct companies (Neodent and Straumann) were analyzed at different positions and sections. The quantitative analyses were performed using an optical interferometer and the qualitative assessments utilized SEM. The evaluation parameters were Roughness Average (Ra), Peak Density (PD), and I Surface Area Ratio (ISAR). Results: There were no qualitative differences among implants of the same company, with different macrodesigns, but differences were seen between companies. The highest values for Ra were seen in the Neodent implants. In comparing the implants according to section for Ra and ISAR, the Neodent implants differed little among each other, but many statistically significant differences were seen between the Neodent and Straumann implants. In comparisons of implants × sections × thread positions, values for Ra were similar between the Neodent implants and differed from the Straumann implants. For PD, in the neck and apex sections no statistically significant differences in the flank position were seen in any of the implants. For ISAR, few differences were seen between the interactions evaluated. When evaluated individually in the same positions and different sections, the Straumann implants showed a higher homogeneity of surface treatment. Conclusions: When implants of different designs were considered separately (Alvim, Drive, Titamax, and Straumann), standardization was observed for the studied parameters (Ra, PD, and ISAR) in the sections and positions evaluated. Implant surface analysis should consider implant different designs and threads shapes as these parameters influence topography results.
Thomé et al. (Fri,) studied this question.