Table 1.
Key manufacturing process differences to obtain the materials of interest to the present study
| Sample type | Treatment value (mJ/cm3) | RMS roughness (nm)
|
Water contact angle | Surface energy (mJ/m2) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2×2 μm | 5×5 μm | ||||
| Plain Ti | N/A | 45.73±9.05 | 66.33±0.23 | 40.12±3.99 | 60.09 |
| Sample 1 | 90.3 | 29.60±0.14 | 31.64±1.63 | 42.03±4.09 | 58.24 |
| Sample 2 | 2.8 | 34.16±0.03 | 38.50±0.02 | 42.25±3.39 | 55.24 |
| Sample 3 | 15.3 | 30.02±0.03 | 35.33±0.03 | 44±5.50 | 55.91 |
| Sample 4 | 36.4 | 77.33±0.43 | 105.50±0.71 | 60.39±4.22 | 43.02 |
| Sample 5 | No ion beam | 36.36±0.02 | 38.81±0.06 | 41.68±9.13 | 56.37 |
Notes: Data presented as mean ± standard deviation. RMS roughness as measured by AFM at scans at 2×2 and 5×5 μm. Unpolished (plain Ti) titanium had greater roughness values than all but the fourth sample. Water contact angle and measured surface energy show that sample 4 had the most hydrophobic and lowest surface energy of all samples (in bold, P<0.05).
Abbreviations: AFM, atomic force microscopy; N/A, not applicable; RMS, root mean squared.