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
Review
. 2023 May 22;14(5):287.
doi: 10.3390/jfb14050287.

Surface Coatings of Dental Implants: A Review

Angelo Michele Inchingolo  1 , Giuseppina Malcangi  1 , Laura Ferrante  1 , Gaetano Del Vecchio  1 , Fabio Viapiano  1 , Alessio Danilo Inchingolo  1 , Antonio Mancini  1 , Ciro Annicchiarico  1 , Francesco Inchingolo  1 , Gianna Dipalma  1 , Elio Minetti  2 , Andrea Palermo  3 , Assunta Patano  1
Affiliations
Review

Surface Coatings of Dental Implants: A Review

Angelo Michele Inchingolo et al. J Funct Biomater. .

Abstract

Replacement of missing teeth is possible using biocompatible devices such as endosseous implants. This study aims to analyze and recognize the best characteristics of different implant surfaces that ensure good peri-implant tissue healing and thus clinical success over time. The present review was performed on the recent literature concerning endosseous implants made of titanium, a material most frequently used because of its mechanical, physical, and chemical characteristics. Thanks to its low bioactivity, titanium exhibits slow osseointegration. Implant surfaces are treated so that cells do not reject the surface as a foreign material and accept it as fully biocompatible. Analysis of different types of implant surface coatings was performed in order to identify ideal surfaces that improve osseointegration, epithelial attachment to the implant site, and overall peri-implant health. This study shows that the implant surface, with different adhesion, proliferation, and spreading capabilities of osteoblastic and epithelial cells, influences the cells involved in anchorage. Implant surfaces must have antibacterial capabilities to prevent peri-implant disease. Research still needs to improve implant material to minimize clinical failure.

Keywords: bacterial adhesion; coating; dental implant; implant stability; marginal bone level; osseointegration; peri-implant health; surface; titanium; treatment surface.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Fibrin implant wettability. The hydrophobe surface shows poor wettability, unlike the hydrophile one with good wettability. The red arrow indicates the magnitude of liquid permeability on the surface of the implant.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Good implant wettability: As soon as the implant is inserted into the bone, there is immediate blood–fixture contact. Blood is attracted to the implant surface.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Fibrin adhesion to the implant surface.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Schematic image of the implant–bone interface.
Figure 5
Figure 5
PRISMA flow chart.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Summary diagram of implant surface treatments. The diagram shows how the hydrophilic property of the implant surfaces (treated and hybrid) lends itself better than the hydrophobic surfaces (machined and smooth) to further treatments to improve their general characteristics.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Electron microscopy detail of a smooth (hydrophobe) and a rough (hydrophile) implant surface, with re-wetting percentages. The hydrophilic surface has a higher BIC percentage than the hydrophobic surface.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Difference in implant bone contact in conditions of implant good health (B) and during peri-implantitis disease (A).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Calabriso N., Stanca E., Rochira A., Damiano F., Giannotti L., Di Chiara Stanca B., Massaro M., Scoditti E., Demitri C., Nitti P., et al. Angiogenic Properties of Concentrated Growth Factors (CGFs): The Role of Soluble Factors and Cellular Components. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13:635. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13050635. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Colombo M., Mangano C., Mijiritsky E., Krebs M., Hauschild U., Fortin T. Clinical Applications and Effectiveness of Guided Implant Surgery: A Critical Review Based on Randomized Controlled Trials. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:150. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0441-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Osman R.B., Swain M.V. A Critical Review of Dental Implant Materials with an Emphasis on Titanium versus Zirconia. Materials. 2015;8:932–958. doi: 10.3390/ma8030932. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Khurshid Z., Hafeji S., Tekin S., Habib S.R., Ullah R., Sefat F., Zafar M.S. 2—Titanium, Zirconia, and Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as a Dental Implant Material. In: Zafar M.S., Khurshid Z., Khan A.S., Najeeb S., Sefat F., editors. Dental Implants. Woodhead Publishing; Cambridge, UK: 2020. pp. 5–35. (Woodhead Publishing Series in Biomaterials).
    1. Gahlert M., Burtscher D., Grunert I., Kniha H., Steinhauser E. Failure Analysis of Fractured Dental Zirconia Implants. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012;23:287–293. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02206.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources