Journal Home > Volume 2 , Issue 1
Nano TransMed 2023, 2(1): e9130017 https://doi.org/10.26599/NTM.2023.9130017
Research Article | Open Access | Issue | Published: 30 March 2023

Profilometry and atomic force microscopy for surface characterization

Show Author's Information Li Mei1( ),  Guangzhao Guan2( )
Department of Oral Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, 310 Great King Street, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand
Department of Oral Diagnostic and Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, 310 Great King Street, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand
Keywords:
atomic force microscopy, roughness, profilometer, topography
Cite this article:
Mei L, Guan G. Profilometry and atomic force microscopy for surface characterization. Nano TransMed, 2023, 2(1): e9130017. https://doi.org/10.26599/NTM.2023.9130017
Download citation
EndNote(RIS)
BibTeX

1551

Views

319

Downloads

Citations

3

Crossref

N/A

WoS

N/A

Scopus

N/A

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article
Aim

This study aims to evaluate and compare the profilometry and atomic force microscopy (AFM) for characterization of biomaterial surfaces.

Method

The clinically commonly used titanium (Ti) was used as the specimen. Each of the specimen was prepared by different grits of sandpapers, including 2000, 1000, 800, 600, 400, 220, 180, and 100 grits. An unpolished Ti plate served as the control. Surface characterization of the Ti specimens was examined using profilometry and AFM.

Results

Both profilometry and AFM were capable of producing two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) topography. The scanning speed of profilometry (12 ± 5 s/image) was faster than that of AFM (250 ± 50 s/image) (p < 0.01). The resolution of AFM was relatively higher than profilometry. AFM produced more precise value, especially at nano-scale. When the Ti surface roughness was less than 0.2 μm, the results of surface roughness measured by profilometry and AFM were similar (mean difference = 0.01 ± 0.03, p = 0.81). When the Ti surface roughness was more than 0.3 μm, the surface roughness measured by profilometry was slightly higher than that by AFM (mean difference = 0.43 ± 0.15, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Profilometry and AFM are both useful techniques for the characterization of biomaterial surfaces. Profilometry scanned faster than the AFM but produced less detailed surface topography. Both technologies provided similar measurement when the roughness was less than 0.2 μm. When the Ti surface roughness was more than 0.3 μm, the surface roughness measured by profilometry was slightly higher than that by AFM.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

Profilometry and atomic force microscopy for surface characterization

Show Author's information Li Mei1( ), Guangzhao Guan2( )
Department of Oral Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, 310 Great King Street, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand
Department of Oral Diagnostic and Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, 310 Great King Street, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand

Abstract

Aim

This study aims to evaluate and compare the profilometry and atomic force microscopy (AFM) for characterization of biomaterial surfaces.

Method

The clinically commonly used titanium (Ti) was used as the specimen. Each of the specimen was prepared by different grits of sandpapers, including 2000, 1000, 800, 600, 400, 220, 180, and 100 grits. An unpolished Ti plate served as the control. Surface characterization of the Ti specimens was examined using profilometry and AFM.

Results

Both profilometry and AFM were capable of producing two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) topography. The scanning speed of profilometry (12 ± 5 s/image) was faster than that of AFM (250 ± 50 s/image) (p < 0.01). The resolution of AFM was relatively higher than profilometry. AFM produced more precise value, especially at nano-scale. When the Ti surface roughness was less than 0.2 μm, the results of surface roughness measured by profilometry and AFM were similar (mean difference = 0.01 ± 0.03, p = 0.81). When the Ti surface roughness was more than 0.3 μm, the surface roughness measured by profilometry was slightly higher than that by AFM (mean difference = 0.43 ± 0.15, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Profilometry and AFM are both useful techniques for the characterization of biomaterial surfaces. Profilometry scanned faster than the AFM but produced less detailed surface topography. Both technologies provided similar measurement when the roughness was less than 0.2 μm. When the Ti surface roughness was more than 0.3 μm, the surface roughness measured by profilometry was slightly higher than that by AFM.

Keywords: atomic force microscopy, roughness, profilometer, topography

References(26)

[1]

Portan, D. V.; Kroustalli, A. A.; Deligianni, D. D.; Papanicolaou, G. C. On the biocompatibility between TiO2 nanotubes layer and human osteoblasts. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2012, 100A, 2546–2553.
DOI Google Scholar
[2]

Elias, C. N.; Meirelles, L. Improving osseointegration of dental implants. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 2010, 7, 241–256.
DOI Google Scholar
[3]

Méndez-Vilas, A.; Donoso, M. G.; González-Carrasco, J. L.; González-Martín, M. L. Looking at the micro-topography of polished and blasted Ti-based biomaterials using atomic force microscopy and contact angle goniometry. Colloids Surf. B: Biointerfaces 2006, 52, 157–166.
DOI Google Scholar
[4]

Canabarro, A.; Figueiredo, F.; Paciornik, S.; De-Deus, G. Two- and three-dimensional profilometer assessments to determine titanium roughness. Scanning 2009, 31, 174–179.
DOI Google Scholar
[5]

Kournetas, N.; Spintzyk, S.; Schweizer, E.; Sawada, T.; Said, F.; Schmid, P.; Geis-Gerstorfer, J.; Eliades, G.; Rupp, F. Comparative evaluation of topographical data of dental implant surfaces applying optical interferometry and scanning electron microscopy. Dent. Mater. 2017, 33, e317–e327.
DOI Google Scholar
[6]

Tholt, B.; Miranda-Júnior, W. G.; Prioli, R.; Thompson, J.; Oda, M. Surface roughness in ceramics with different finishing techniques using atomic force microscope and profilometer. Oper. Dent. 2006, 31, 442–449.
DOI Google Scholar
[7]
Beitia, C.; Sater, M. A.; Cordeau, M.; Godny, S.; Petitgrand, S.; Alliata, D. Optical profilometry and AFM measurements comparison on low amplitude deterministic surfaces. In 30th Annual SEMI Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference, Saratoga Springs, USA, 2019, pp 1–4.
DOI
[8]

Vieira, T. I.; de Sousa Andrade, K. M.; Cabral, L. M.; Valença, A. M. G.; Maia, L. C.; Batista, A. U. D. Linear and areal surface roughness assessments for the study of tooth wear in human enamel. Clin. Oral Investig. 2023, 27, 329–338.
DOI Google Scholar
[9]

Yılmaz, C.; Kanık, Ö. Investigation of surface roughness values of various restorative materials after brushing with blue covarine containing whitening toothpaste by two different methods: AFM and profilometer. Microsc. Res. Technol. 2022, 85, 521–532.
DOI Google Scholar
[10]

Binnig, G.; Quate, C. F.; Gerber, C. Atomic force microscope. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1986, 56, 930–933.
DOI Google Scholar
[11]

Pantić, M.; Mitrović, S.; Babić, M.; Jevremović, D.; Kanjevac, T.; Džunić, D.; Adamović, D. AFM surface roughness and topography analysis of lithium disilicate glass ceramic. Tribol. Ind. 2015, 37, 391–399.
Google Scholar
[12]

Santos, S.; Barcons, V.; Christenson, H. K.; Font, J.; Thomson, N. H. The intrinsic resolution limit in the atomic force microscope: Implications for heights of nano-scale features. PLoS One. 2011, 6, e23821.
DOI Google Scholar
[13]

Guo, T.; Wang, S. M.; Dorantes-Gonzalez, D. J.; Chen, J. P.; Fu, X.; Hu, X. T. Development of a hybrid atomic force microscopic measurement system combined with white light scanning interferometry. Sensors 2012, 12, 175–188.
DOI Google Scholar
[14]

Kroeger, M. E.; Sorenson, B. A.; Thomas, J. S.; Stojković, E. A.; Tsonchev, S.; Nicholson, K. T. Atomic force microscopy of red-light photoreceptors using peakforce quantitative nanomechanical property mapping. J. Vis. Exp. 2014, e52164.
DOI Google Scholar
[15]

Karatas, O.; Gul, P.; Gündoğdu, M.; Iskenderoglu, D. T. An evaluation of surface roughness after staining of different composite resins using atomic force microscopy and a profilometer. Microsc. Res. Technol. 2020, 83, 1251–1259.
DOI Google Scholar
[16]

Deligianni, D. D.; Katsala, N.; Ladas, S.; Sotiropoulou, D.; Amedee, J.; Missirlis, Y. F. Effect of surface roughness of the titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V on human bone marrow cell response and on protein adsorption. Biomaterials 2001, 22, 1241–1251.
DOI Google Scholar
[17]

Elias, C. N.; Oshida, Y.; Lima, J. H. C.; Muller, C. A. Relationship between surface properties (roughness, wettability and morphology) of titanium and dental implant removal torque. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2008, 1, 234–242.
DOI Google Scholar
[18]

Liu, Y. P.; Zhu, D. K.; Gilbert, J. L. Sub-nano to nanometer wear and tribocorrosion of titanium oxide-metal surfaces by in situ atomic force microscopy. Acta Biomater. 2021, 126, 477–484.
DOI Google Scholar
[19]

Guan, G. Z.; He, Y.; Mei, L. Atomic force microscopy: A nanobiotechnology for cellular research. Nano TransMed 2022, 1, e9130004.
DOI Google Scholar
[20]

Fandridis, J.; Papadopoulos, T. Surface characterization of three titanium dental implants. Implant Dent. 2008, 17, 91–99.
DOI Google Scholar
[21]

Kakaboura, A.; Fragouli, M.; Rahiotis, C.; Silikas, N. Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2007, 18, 155–163.
DOI Google Scholar
[22]

Takechi-Haraya, Y.; Usui, A.; Izutsu, K. I.; Abe, Y. Atomic force microscopic imaging of mRNA-lipid nanoparticles in aqueous medium. J. Pharm. Sci. 2023, 112, 648–652.
DOI Google Scholar
[23]

Ridolfi, A.; Caselli, L.; Montis, C.; Mangiapia, G.; Berti, D.; Brucale, M.; Valle, F. Gold nanoparticles interacting with synthetic lipid rafts: An AFM investigation. J. Microsc. 2020, 280, 194–203.
DOI Google Scholar
[24]
Pyne, A. L. B.; Hoogenboom, B. W. Imaging DNA structure by atomic force microscopy. In Chromosome Architecture. Leake, M. C., Ed.; Springer: New York, 2016; pp 47–60.
DOI
[25]

Semenov, D. V.; Nippolainen, E.; Kamshilin, A. A. Accuracy and resolution of a dynamic-speckle profilometer. Appl. Opt. 2006, 45, 411–418.
DOI Google Scholar
[26]

Liao, H. S.; Cheng, S. H.; Hwu, E. T. Method for film thickness mapping with an astigmatic optical profilometer. Sensors 2022, 22, 2865.
DOI Google Scholar
Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 10 March 2023
Revised: 20 March 2023
Accepted: 20 March 2023
Published: 30 March 2023
Issue date: March 2023

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2023. Nano TransMed published by Tsinghua University Press.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

This research were funded by 2021 SJWRI PhD Research Grant (No. 118940), and 2022 University of Otago Research Grants (No. 0122-0323).

Rights and permissions

The articles published in this open access journal are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Return