Tomas Albrektsson1,2, Ann Wennerberg3. 1. Department of Biomaterials, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, University of Malmö, Malmö, Sweden. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The understanding of mechanisms of osseointegration as well as applied knowledge about oral implant surfaces are of paramount importance for successful clinical results. PURPOSE: The aim of the present article is to present an overview of osseointegration mechanisms and an introduction to surface innovations with relevance for osseointegration that will be published in the same supplement of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present article is a narrative review of some osseointegration and implant surface-related details. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Osseointegration has a changed definition since it is realized today that oral implants are but foreign bodies and that this fact explains osseointegration as a protection mechanism of the tissues. Given adequate stability, bone tissue is formed around titanium implants to shield them from the tissues. Oral implant surfaces may be characterized by microroughness and nanoroughness, by surface chemical composition and by physical and mechanical parameters. An isotropic, moderately rough implant surface such as seen on the TiUnite device has displayed improved clinical results compared to previously used minimally rough or rough surfaces. However, there is a lack of clinical evidence supporting any particular type of nanoroughness pattern that, at best, is documented with results from animal studies. It is possible, but as yet unproven, that clinical results may be supported by a certain chemical composition of the implant surface. The same can be said with respect to hydrophilicity of implant surfaces; positive animal data may suggest some promise, but there is a lack of clinical evidence that hydrophilic implants result in improved clinical outcome of more hydrophobic surfaces. With respect to mechanical properties, it seems obvious that those must be encompassing the loading of oral implants, but we need more research on the mechanically ideal implant surface from a clinical aspect.
BACKGROUND: The understanding of mechanisms of osseointegration as well as applied knowledge about oral implant surfaces are of paramount importance for successful clinical results. PURPOSE: The aim of the present article is to present an overview of osseointegration mechanisms and an introduction to surface innovations with relevance for osseointegration that will be published in the same supplement of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present article is a narrative review of some osseointegration and implant surface-related details. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Osseointegration has a changed definition since it is realized today that oral implants are but foreign bodies and that this fact explains osseointegration as a protection mechanism of the tissues. Given adequate stability, bone tissue is formed around titanium implants to shield them from the tissues. Oral implant surfaces may be characterized by microroughness and nanoroughness, by surface chemical composition and by physical and mechanical parameters. An isotropic, moderately rough implant surface such as seen on the TiUnite device has displayed improved clinical results compared to previously used minimally rough or rough surfaces. However, there is a lack of clinical evidence supporting any particular type of nanoroughness pattern that, at best, is documented with results from animal studies. It is possible, but as yet unproven, that clinical results may be supported by a certain chemical composition of the implant surface. The same can be said with respect to hydrophilicity of implant surfaces; positive animal data may suggest some promise, but there is a lack of clinical evidence that hydrophilic implants result in improved clinical outcome of more hydrophobic surfaces. With respect to mechanical properties, it seems obvious that those must be encompassing the loading of oral implants, but we need more research on the mechanically ideal implant surface from a clinical aspect.
Authors: Alice Frosch; Sebastian Krohn; Gottfried Buchhorn; Wolfgang Lehmann; Karl-Heinz Frosch; László Füzesi; Stephan Frosch Journal: Histol Histopathol Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Stephan Frosch; Gottfried Buchhorn; Sebastian Krohn; Wolfgang Lehmann; Karl-Heinz Frosch; László Füzesi; Alice Frosch Journal: Histol Histopathol Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Jefferson O Abaricia; Arth H Shah; Marissa N Ruzga; Rene Olivares-Navarrete Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2021-02-07 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Marco Aoqi Rausch; Hassan Shokoohi-Tabrizi; Christian Wehner; Benjamin E Pippenger; Raphael S Wagner; Christian Ulm; Andreas Moritz; Jiang Chen; Oleh Andrukhov Journal: Biology (Basel) Date: 2021-04-22