Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 1593–1600 | Cite as

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

  • Herbert DeppeEmail author
  • Carolina Wolff
  • Florian Bauer
  • Ricarda Ruthenberg
  • Anton Sculean
  • Thomas Mücke
Original Article



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.


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.


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.


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.


Dental implant Implant surface Insertion Surface morphology 



The work was not funded.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Thomason JM et al (2009) Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients—the York consensus statement. Br Dent J 207(4):185–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mints D et al (2014) Integrity of implant surface modifications after insertion. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29(1):97–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albrektsson T et al (1981) Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 52(2):155–170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ruger M et al (2010) The removal of Al2O3 particles from grit-blasted titanium implant surfaces: effects on biocompatibility, osseointegration and interface strength in vivo. Acta Biomater 6(7):2852–2861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mata A et al (2003) Osteoblast attachment to a textured surface in the absence of exogenous adhesion proteins. IEEE Trans Nanobioscience 2(4):287–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi JW et al (2006) Biological responses of anodized titanium implants under different current voltages. J Oral Rehabil 33(12):889–897CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deppe H et al (2015) Surface morphology analysis of dental implants following insertion into bone using scanning electron microscopy: a pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(11):1261–1266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pawley J (2006) Handbook of biological confocal microscopy, 3rd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sartoretto SC et al (2015) Early osseointegration driven by the surface chemistry and wettability of dental implants. J Appl Oral Sci 23(3):279–287CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T (2000) Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15(3):331–344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arvidsson A, Sater BA, Wennerberg A (2006) The role of functional parameters for topographical characterization of bone-anchored implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 8(2):70–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brown CA, Johnsen WA, Hult KM (1998) Scale-sensitivity, fractual analysis and simulations. Int J Mach Tools Manufact 38:633–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Misch CE (1999) Bone density: a key determinant for clinical success. In: Misch CE (ed) Contemporary implant dentistry, 2nd edn. CV Mosby Company, St LouisGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooper LF (2000) A role for surface topography in creating and maintaining bone at titanium endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 84(5):522–534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trisi P et al (2003) Bone-implant contact on machined and dual acid-etched surfaces after 2 months of healing in the human maxilla. J Periodontol 74(7):945–956CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pak HS, Yeo IS, Yang JH (2010) A histomorphometric study of dental implants with different surface characteristics. J Adv Prosthodont 2(4):142–147CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bouwman JP, Tuinzing DB, Kostense PJ (1994) A comparative in vitro study on fixation of sagittal split osteotomies with Wurzburg screws, Champy miniplates, and biofix (biodegradable) rods. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 23(1):46–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mosekilde L (1995) Assessing bone quality—animal models in preclinical osteoporosis research. Bone 17(4 Suppl):343S–352SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wennerberg A et al (1995) A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res 6(1):24–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ballo AM et al (2011) Dental implant surfaces—physicochemical properties, biological performance, and trends. In: Turkyilmaz PI (ed) Implant dentistry—a rapidly evolving practice. InTechGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A (2004) Oral implant surfaces: part 1—review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont 17(5):536–543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wennerberg A et al (1992) An optical three-dimensional technique for topographical descriptions of surgical implants. J Biomed Eng 14(5):412–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wennerberg A et al (1997) A 1-year follow-up of implants of differing surface roughness placed in rabbit bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12(4):486–494PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B (1996) Bone tissue response to commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and coarse particles of aluminum oxide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11(1):38–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wennerberg A et al (2004) Titanium release from implants prepared with different surface roughness. Clin Oral Implants Res 15(5):505–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Valente ML, Lepri CP, dos Reis AC (2014) In vitro microstructural analysis of dental implants subjected to insertion torque and pullout test. Braz Dent J 25(4):343–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guan H et al (2009) Influence of bone and dental implant parameters on stress distribution in the mandible: a finite element study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24(5):866–876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schliephake H et al (1993) Metal release from titanium fixtures during placement in the mandible: an experimental study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 8(5):502–511PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goodman SB, Ma T (2010) Cellular chemotaxis induced by wear particles from joint replacements. Biomaterials 31(19):5045–5050CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bukata SV et al (2004) PGE2 and IL-6 production by fibroblasts in response to titanium wear debris particles is mediated through a Cox-2 dependent pathway. J Orthop Res 22(1):6–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tanaka M et al (1994) Effects of bone tapping on osseointegration of screw dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 9:541–547Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herbert Deppe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carolina Wolff
    • 2
  • Florian Bauer
    • 1
  • Ricarda Ruthenberg
    • 1
  • Anton Sculean
    • 3
  • Thomas Mücke
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Oral and Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Oral and Craniomaxillofacial SurgeryLudwig-Maximilians University of MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Department of PeriodontologyUniversity of BerneBerneSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Plastic SurgerySt. JosefshospitalKrefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations