种植体组件之间的微间隙与如螺钉松动或不良生物反应等并发症有关。近日，西班牙巴塞罗那加泰罗尼亚理工大学材料科学系Fernández M等发表论文，旨在量化经不同的工序生产的种植体组件对接界面的微观粗糙度，量化种植体组件之间的微间隙，确定微间隙和微观粗糙度之间是否存在相关性。研究指出，经碾磨（工序生产）的口腔种植体组件（表面）比铸造或烧结口腔种植体组件（表面）光滑。表面粗糙度和微间隙宽度之间存在相关性。该文发表于近期《口腔修复学杂志》。[J Prosthet Dent.2013 Oct 28. pii: S0022-3913（13）00207-2. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.006.]

　　9个标准外连接牙种植体（分别）与3个碾磨相容性钴铬合金基台、3个铸造相容性钴铬合金基台、3个烧结相容性钴铬合金基台配对。检查基台表面并用白光干涉显微镜（放大倍率10到100）测量粗糙度参数（Sz）。用扫描电镜观察种植体-基台连接的基台表面和微间隙并根据每对种植体-基台生成的显微图象量化微间隙宽度。对粗糙度和微间隙的平均值和标准差进行评估，用单向方差分析（α=0.05）评估生产工序对粗糙度和微间隙的影响，用皮尔逊相关系数检查表面粗糙度和微间隙之间的相关性。

　　碾磨（钴铬合金）基台呈现清晰边缘的几何关系，平均粗糙度为29μm；烧结（钴铬合金）基台呈现模糊但有功能的连接（关系），粗糙度是115μm；烧结（钴铬合金）基台（连接表面）丧失了轴对称性，粗糙度为98μm。连接界面的粗糙度值与微间隙宽度之间存在很强的相关性。

　　原文摘要：

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The microgap between implant components has been associated with complications such as screw loosening or adverse biologic responses.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the microroughness of the mating surfaces of implant components manufactured with different processes， to quantify the microgap between implant components， and to determine whether a correlation exists between microroughness and the microgap.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nine dental implants with a standard external connection were paired with 3 milled， 3 cast， and 3 sintered compatible cobalt-chromium alloy abutments. The abutment surface was examined， and the roughness parameter Sz was measured by using a white-light interferometric microscope at ×10 to ×100 magnification. The abutment surface and the microgap of the implant-abutment connection were observed with scanning electron microscopy， and the microgap width was quantified from micrographs made of each implant-abutment pair. The mean and standard deviation of roughness and microgap were evaluated. A 1-way ANOVA （α=.05） was used to assess the influence of the manufacturing process on roughness and microgap. The Pearson correlation was used to check dependence between roughness and microgap.

RESULTS: The milled abutments possessed a connection geometry with defined edges and a mean roughness of 29 μm， sintered abutments showed a blurred but functional connection with a roughness of 115 μm， and cast abutments showed a connection with a loss of axial symmetry and a roughness of 98 μm. A strong correlation was found between the roughness values on the mating surfaces and the microgap width.

CONCLUSIONS: The milled components were smoother than the cast or sintered components. A correlation was found between surface roughness and microgap width.