These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Looking at the micro-topography of polished and blasted Ti-based biomaterials using atomic force microscopy and contact angle goniometry.
    Author: Méndez-Vilas A, Donoso MG, González-Carrasco JL, González-Martín ML.
    Journal: Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces; 2006 Oct 01; 52(2):157-66. PubMed ID: 16782313.
    Abstract:
    Surface topography of polished and blasted samples of a Ti6Al4V biomaterial has been studied using an atomic force microscope. Surface RMS roughness and surface area have been measured at different scales, from 1 to 50 microm, while at distances below 10 microm the surface RMS roughness in both kinds of samples is not very different, this difference becomes significant at larger scanning sizes. This means that the surface roughness scale that could have a main role in cell adhesion varies depending on the size, shape and flexibility of participating cells. This consideration suggests that in cell-material interaction studies, surface roughness should not be considered as an absolute and independent property of the material, but should be measured at scales in the order of the cell sizes, at least if a microscopic interpretation of the influence of roughness on the adhesion is intended. The microscopic information is contrasted with that coming from a macroscopic approach obtained by contact angle measurements for polar and non-polar liquids whose surface tension is comprised in a broad range. Despite the very large differences of contact angles among liquids for each surface condition, a similar increase for the blasted surface with respect to the polished has been found. Interpretation of these results are in accordance with the microscopic analysis done through the use of a functional roughness parameter, namely the valley fluid retention index, evaluated from the AFM images, which has been shown not to correlate with the RMS roughness, one of the most commonly used roughness parameter.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]