【作者】 曹红丹；

【导师】 吴大怡； 杨小东；

【作者基本信息】 四川大学 ， 生物医学工程， 2005， 硕士

【摘要】 表面粗化处理是一种简单经济的种植体表面改性方法,钛种植体表面粗化后可改善骨结合从而提高种植成功率,但不同粗化处理技术对种植体表面理化和生物学性能的差异有待考察。本文以抛光处理(PT)作为光滑面的对照,比较了喷氧化铝砂(SA)、喷氧化铝砂-酸蚀(SAA)、喷钛砂-酸蚀(STA)、电腐蚀(EE)四种不同表面粗化处理的钛种植体的理化性能和生物学性能异同。运用扫描电镜(SEM)、能谱分析(EDS)、接触角测定、感应耦合质谱仪(ICP)等理化分析方法,同时结合蛋白吸附、细胞培养以及动物植入生物学实验,考察了种植体表面形貌特征、表面异种元素污染情况、材料表面能、粗化后表面腐蚀性以及各种粗化种植体对蛋白吸附和随后的细胞粘附及它们对骨界面生物力学性能的影响。 SEM观察结果显示,各种粗化处理后材料均呈现凹凸不平表面,但不同处理方法所形成的形貌仍有较大差异。PT表面相对光滑,有规则的划痕;SA样品表面为不规则的角棱状突起和坑凹;酸蚀后SAA窝壁出现无数小的蚀坑;STA样品表面则为规则蜂窝状结构;而EE样品表面形成了大小不一孔洞,孔洞相互贯通,大的孔洞中有小的次级孔洞。EDS成分分析证实,采用异质材料粗化处理的种植体表面存在元素污染问题,甚至再采用酸蚀处理后其表面仍有异质材料嵌入。接触角测定表明尽管30s接触角没有显著性差异,但最初10s还是有区别的,电腐蚀表面浸润性较好。ICP检测结果进一步证实了喷砂过程中表面污更多还原

【Abstract】 Surface treatment was an simple effective method of surface modification. The roughness treatment of titanium implant surface could improve the bone bonding and increase the success rate of implant. But the difference of diverse treatments was still unknown. In this study we compared several pysio-chemical properties such as themicrostructure, surface contamination and surface energy, water contact angle and corrosion resistance on Polished Treatment(PT) and Sandblasting with Alumina(SA), Sandblasting with Aluminia and Acid-etched(SAA), Sandblasting with Titanium Acid-etched(STA), Electro-erosion Treatment(EE) four different roughness treatments surface by Scanning Electron Microscopy(SEM), Energy disperse spectrometer (EDS) , contact angle test instruction and inductively coupled plasma (ICP). Some biological characters, for example, albumen adsorption, cell culture, animal test were also applied to investigate the effects of different surface on protein and cell adherence, on implant-bone bonding.The result of SEM showed that surface showed irregularities after roughness treatments and the surface properties of different roughness treatments had some distinctions, SAA and SA had some sharply edges and protrutions, the STA showed regular pattern like honeycomb, but the EE treated by electric erosion exhibited the deeper pores with different sizes and the pores with a secondary structure were perforation。 The EDSindicated that the surface existed contamination after the treatment of foreign materials, the SA surface had some embedded contaminations even after acid etching. Water contact angle indicated that there was no significant difference after 30 second, but there was different after 10 second. The result of ICP further confirmed exsistence of contaminations on SAA and SA, and different surfaces of titanium implants showed the different corrosion resistance by the examination of ICP. Albumen adsorption indicated that there was no significant divergence among the different implant surfaces, but the EE surface showed the higher amount of protein. Cell culture research prompted that different treatments had no significant different effects on the growth rate of cell, but the expression of ALP on EE surfaces was higher than others on 6 days. Push-out test displayed that the implant-bone bonding increase with the time, and roughness surfaces was a higher implant-bone bonding than the smooth surface. Among the roughness surfaces, EE surfaces showed the highest shear strength at the 2 and 3 months.The above results indicated that different roughness treatments had the different effects on the alterations of surface microstructure, surface chemical component, surface energy, which provided good evidence for us to understand the following biological responses from the biomaterial aspects. From the Albumen adsorption to the cell adherence to the bone tissue growth, the courses were affected by implant surface physio-chemical properties. The effects of surface roughness treatments on biological characters were helpful to find the fittest implant roughness in clinic. Comparatively, the EE surface could provide a better roughness structures that was beneficial to bone bonding, and it might be a implant surface treatment to use in clinic.更多还原