Sunil Kumar Mishra1, Muktadar Anand Kumar2, Ramesh Chowdhary2. 1. Department of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics and Implantology, Peoples College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. 2. Department of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics and Implantology, Rajarajeswari Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Anodized implants with moderately rough surface were introduced around 2000. Whether these implants enhanced biologic effect to improve the environment for better osseointegration was unclear. The purpose of this article was to review the literature available on anodized surface in terms of their clinical success rate and bone response in patients till now. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A broad electronic search of MEDLINE and PubMed databases was performed. A focus was made on peer-reviewed dental journals. Only articles related to anodized implants were included. Both animal and human studies were included. RESULTS: The initial search of articles resulted in 581 articles on anodized implants. The initial screening of titles and abstracts resulted in 112 full-text papers; 40 animal studies, 16 studies on cell adhesion and bacterial adhesion onto anodized surfaced implants, and 47 human studies were included. Nine studies, which do not fulfill the inclusion criteria, were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term studies on anodized surface implants do favor the surface, but in most of the studies, anodized surface is compared with that of machined surface, but not with other surfaces commercially available. Anodized surface in terms of clinical success rate in cases of compromised bone and immediately extracted sockets has shown favorable success.
PURPOSE: Anodized implants with moderately rough surface were introduced around 2000. Whether these implants enhanced biologic effect to improve the environment for better osseointegration was unclear. The purpose of this article was to review the literature available on anodized surface in terms of their clinical success rate and bone response in patients till now. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A broad electronic search of MEDLINE and PubMed databases was performed. A focus was made on peer-reviewed dental journals. Only articles related to anodized implants were included. Both animal and human studies were included. RESULTS: The initial search of articles resulted in 581 articles on anodized implants. The initial screening of titles and abstracts resulted in 112 full-text papers; 40 animal studies, 16 studies on cell adhesion and bacterial adhesion onto anodized surfaced implants, and 47 human studies were included. Nine studies, which do not fulfill the inclusion criteria, were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term studies on anodized surface implants do favor the surface, but in most of the studies, anodized surface is compared with that of machined surface, but not with other surfaces commercially available. Anodized surface in terms of clinical success rate in cases of compromised bone and immediately extracted sockets has shown favorable success.