Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2018 Apr;22(3):1593-1600.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2262-4. Epub 2017 Oct 24.

Dental implant surfaces after insertion in bone: an in vitro study in four commercial implant systems

Affiliations
Free article
Comparative Study

Dental implant surfaces after insertion in bone: an in vitro study in four commercial implant systems

Herbert Deppe et al. Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Apr.
Free article

Abstract

Objectives: Primary healing of dental implants is influenced by their surface morphology. However, little is known about any alterations in morphology during their insertion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the surface morphology of four different implant systems, following their insertion in porcine jaw bones.

Methods: Four fresh porcine mandible specimens were used. Six new implants of four systems (Ankylos® 4.5 × 14 mm, Frialit Synchro® 4.5 × 15 mm, NobelReplace ® Tapered Groovy RP 4.3 × 13 mm, Straumann SLA® Bone Level 3.3 × 14 mm) were inserted, whereas one implant of each system served as a control. After their removal, implants were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath. All 28 implants were examined quantitatively by 3D confocal microscopy for surface characteristics.

Results: In the evaluated zones, implants of the Ankylos, Frialit, and Straumann systems showed mostly a reduction of the mean surface roughness Sa, the maximal surface roughness Sz, and the developed surface area ratio Sdr; Nobel implants showed an increase in these parameters. With respect to all three parameters Sa, Sz, and Sdr, statistical analysis revealed that differences between the four systems were highly significant in the apical region of implants. Controls showed no morphologic alterations.

Conclusion: The insertion process had an impact on the surface of all four implant systems. Anodized implant surface modification seems to result in more alterations compared with subtractive surface modifications. Therefore, surgical planning should take into consideration the choice of surface treatment because the characteristics of the implants may be modified during the installation process.

Clinical relevance: The given information is of value for daily implantation practice and the course of osseointegration.

Keywords: Dental implant; Implant surface; Insertion; Surface morphology.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995 Mar;6(1):24-30 - PubMed
    1. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52(2):155-70 - PubMed
    1. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996 Jan-Feb;11(1):38-45 - PubMed
    1. Biomaterials. 2010 Jul;31(19):5045-50 - PubMed
    1. J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Nov;84(5):522-34 - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources