Dental implant surfaces after insertion in bone: an in vitro study in four commercial implant systems
- 192 Downloads
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.
The given information is of value for daily implantation practice and the course of osseointegration.
KeywordsDental 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.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 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
- 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
- 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