Tomas Albrektsson1, Ann Wennerberg. 1. Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Göteborg University, Sweden. tomas.albrektsson@biomaterials.gu.se
Abstract
PURPOSE: This article reviews the topographic and chemical properties of different oral implant surfaces and in vivo responses to them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The article considers detailed mechanical, topographic, and physical characteristics of implant surfaces. Anchorage mechanisms such as biomechanical and biochemical bonding are examined. Osteoattraction and doped surfaces are discussed. RESULTS: Surface quality of an oral implant may be subdivided into mechanical, topographic, and physicochemical properties. Topographic properties are evaluated at the micrometer level of resolution. Moderately rough surfaces (Sa between 1.0 and 2.0 microm) show stronger bone responses than smoother or rougher surfaces. The majority of currently marketed implants are moderately rough. Oral implants permit bone ingrowth into minor surface irregularities-biomechanical bonding or osseointegration. Additional biochemical bonding seems possible with certain surfaces. Osteoattraction is a commercial term without precise biologic correspondence. Surfaces doped with biochemical agents such as bone growth factors have been developed. CONCLUSION: Moderately roughened surfaces seem to have some clinical advantages over smoother or rougher surfaces, but the differences are small and often not statistically significant. Bioactive implants may offer some promise.
PURPOSE: This article reviews the topographic and chemical properties of different oral implant surfaces and in vivo responses to them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The article considers detailed mechanical, topographic, and physical characteristics of implant surfaces. Anchorage mechanisms such as biomechanical and biochemical bonding are examined. Osteoattraction and doped surfaces are discussed. RESULTS: Surface quality of an oral implant may be subdivided into mechanical, topographic, and physicochemical properties. Topographic properties are evaluated at the micrometer level of resolution. Moderately rough surfaces (Sa between 1.0 and 2.0 microm) show stronger bone responses than smoother or rougher surfaces. The majority of currently marketed implants are moderately rough. Oral implants permit bone ingrowth into minor surface irregularities-biomechanical bonding or osseointegration. Additional biochemical bonding seems possible with certain surfaces. Osteoattraction is a commercial term without precise biologic correspondence. Surfaces doped with biochemical agents such as bone growth factors have been developed. CONCLUSION: Moderately roughened surfaces seem to have some clinical advantages over smoother or rougher surfaces, but the differences are small and often not statistically significant. Bioactive implants may offer some promise.
Authors: Rafael Manfro; Marcelo Carlos Bortoluzzi; Vinícius Fabris; Carlos Nelson Elias; Vera Cavalcanti de Araújo Journal: J Maxillofac Oral Surg Date: 2013-09-13
Authors: Fabio Variola; John B Brunski; Giovanna Orsini; Paulo Tambasco de Oliveira; Rima Wazen; Antonio Nanci Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Garrit Koller; Richard J Cook; Ian D Thompson; Timothy F Watson; Lucy Di Silvio Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2007-06-12 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: Anna Arvidsson; Fredrik Currie; Per Kjellin; Young-Taeg Sul; Victoria Stenport Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 3.896