Primary surface measurement reported
Surface wettability was reported as water contact angle (θ) measured on instrumented SLA titanium surfaces.
Client Citation Analysis
Effect of mechanical instrumentation on titanium implant surface properties
This study evaluates how four rotary brush decontamination approaches alter SLA titanium surface properties, using Dropometer-based water contact angle (wettability) alongside morphology, roughness, and elemental composition measurements.
At-a-Glance Summary
Dropometer attribution in the paper
Surface wettability was evaluated using a droplet shape analyser (Dropometer, Droplet Lab, Canada), with images analysed in dedicated software using a polynomial fit to calculate left and right contact angles.
How the surface-tension / contact-angle data were used in the study
Contact angle results were presented in Table 2 and Fig. 6 and used to compare wettability differences across rotary brush decontamination groups relative to the control. The authors interpret wettability changes alongside the study’s surface topography and composition characterisation to describe how mechanical instrumentation modifies implant-relevant surface properties.
Replication / reliability statement
Contact angle measurements were taken from five discs in each group, with five repeat measurements per disc (n = 125; 25 measurements per group), and the mean contact angle was computed for each group as a representative value.
Paper Details
Title
Effect of mechanical instrumentation on titanium implant surface properties
Authors
Mohammed Alabbad; Nick Silikas; Andrew Thomas
Journal
Dental Materials
Year
2025
Volume
41
Pages / Article
383–390
License
CC BY
Journal context
What it is
Journal-level metrics for the publication venue (not a rating of this specific article).
How to read it
Compare metrics within category; updates are annual and lag current-year publications.
What Was Measured
Primary surface / interfacial measurement
Surface wettability was measured as contact angle (θ) using ultrapure water droplets deposited on treated SLA titanium surfaces and analysed by droplet shape analysis.
Supporting measurements
Surface morphology/topography was evaluated by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) and gross surface photography. Surface elemental composition was measured by SEM-EDX, and surface roughness was measured by 3-D optical profilometry using three-dimensional parameters (Sa, Sz, Ssk, Sku, Sdq, Sdr) following ISO 25178–2:2012.
Role of the Dropometer
The authors used a droplet shape analyser (Dropometer, Droplet Lab, Canada) to determine water contact angles as a measure of surface wettability. An automated dispenser deposited a 3 µl ultrapure water droplet onto each treated surface at 23 °C, images were captured after 5 s, and dedicated software applied a polynomial fit to calculate contact angles on the right and left sides of the droplet; group mean contact angles were then computed as representative values for analysis.
In this study, Dropometer-derived contact angles were used to compare how different rotary brush decontamination methods changed wettability relative to the untreated control.
Key Findings
Contact angle differed significantly across decontamination groups
Results for contact angle (θ) showed significant differences among groups by Kruskal–Wallis testing (p < 0.001), with outcomes presented in Table 2 and Fig. 6.
LB wettability matched the control
Further analysis reported that the LB group’s contact angle was similar to the control (p > 0.05), with medians of 85.9° (LB) and 84.8° (CTR) in Table 2.
IB and PIB showed the largest wettability increase
The IB and PIB groups exhibited significantly higher wettability than the control (p < 0.05), indicated by lower contact angles, and the authors state these two groups reduced the contact angle to a similar extent (Table 2 medians: 67.45° (IB) and 65.3° (PIB)).
NiTiB produced a smaller contact-angle reduction
he NiTiB group was reported as significantly more wettable than the control (p < 0.05) but reduced contact angle to a lesser degree than IB and PIB (Table 2 median: 81.0°).
Figures & Visuals
Figure 6 — Representative wettability images
What it shows
Shows representative water droplets used for contact-angle assessment of surface wettability across the decontamination groups.
Table 2 — Contact angle values alongside roughness parameters
What it shows
Lists median (range) contact angle (θ°) by group together with multiple 3D roughness parameters, enabling direct comparison of wettability with topographical characterisation.
Figure 4 — Surface morphology context for wettability changes
What it shows
Provides FE-SEM images illustrating how rotary brush instrumentation altered SLA surface morphology, which the paper discusses alongside wettability results.
Figure 5 — Surface chemistry context for wettability changes
What it shows
Summarises elemental composition (wt%) after mechanical instrumentation, used in the paper’s broader interpretation of surface property changes alongside contact angle.
Why It Matters
The authors frame peri-implantitis decontamination as a process that can modify implant surface properties, and they evaluate these changes by combining wettability (contact angle) with surface morphology, roughness, and elemental composition measurements. Within this approach, the contact angle data provide a direct, quantitative comparison of how different rotary brush systems influence surface wettability of SLA titanium.
In the discussion, the authors connect altered wettability to the broader question of how instrumentation-induced surface changes may relate to implant performance, while situating their findings within the context of clinically used implant surface characteristics.
Practical Takeaways
Standardised contact-angle workflow
The study reports a defined protocol using a droplet shape analyser (Dropometer, Droplet Lab, Canada) with a 3 µl ultrapure water droplet, imaging at 5 s, and polynomial-fit analysis of left/right angles.
Brush choice shifts wettability outcomes
Contact angle results show that wettability changes depended on the rotary brush system, with IB, NiTiB, and PIB reported as more wettable than the control (p 0.05).
Quantitative group comparison via Table 2
The paper reports median (range) contact angles for each group (CTR 84.8°, LB 85.9°, IB 67.45°, NiTiB 81.0°, PIB 65.3°) to compare decontamination methods on a common wettability metric.
Wettability interpreted alongside surface characterisation
The contact angle results are discussed in the context of FE-SEM morphology, 3D roughness parameters, and SEM-EDX elemental composition to describe how mechanical instrumentation alters multiple surface properties.