Comparison of early osseointegration between laser-treated/acid-etched and sandblasted/acid-etched titanium implant surfaces

  • Mingdeng Rong
  • Haibin Lu
  • Lei Wan
  • Xueyang Zhang
  • Xi Lin
  • Shaobing Li
  • Lei Zhou
  • Yingtao Lv
  • Yuan Su
Biocompatibility Studies Original Research
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biocompatibility Studies


This study was designed to compare the early osseointegration of titanium surfaces prepared via laser-treated/acid-etched (LA) and sandblasted/acid-etched (SLA) in dogs. Titanium implants were divided into two groups: Surfaces of the experimental group were treated via LA, while in the control group, surfaces were treated via SLA. The physical and chemical properties of LA and SLA surfaces were tested and compared. Sixteen implants with LA or SLA surfaces were placed into the tibias of four beagle dogs, each treatment group received two implants per single tibia. The dogs were sacrificed two and four weeks after implant placement. Scanning electron microscopy showed that both the LA and SLAs surface exhibited rough structures with micro pores sized 1–3 μm. In the LA surface, regular melting points were observed. However, in the SLA surface, the structure was irregular and few oxide aluminum particles still remained. Only titanium and a small amount of titanium compounds were detected on LA surfaces, while Al was found of SLA surfaces. The LA surface roughness was above that of SLA surfaces (LA: Ra: 2.1 μm; SLA: Ra :1.53 μm; P < 0.01). Both groups exhibited good osseointegration and no significant differences were found in the BIC% at two or four weeks between both groups (P > 0.05). Both groups exhibited good osseointegration; however, the LA surface was cleaner and more uniform than the SLA surface, and no significant differences were found between both groups.



This work was supported by Stomatological Hospital, Southern Medical University and grants from the Natural Science Foundation of China (81170998) and the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2014A030310146).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Albrektsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindstrom J. Osseointegrated titanium implants requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52:155–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bornstein MM, Lussi A, Schmid B, Belser UC, Buser D. Early loading of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface: 3-year results of a prospective study in partially edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18:659–66.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cochran DL, Buser D, Ten BC, Weingart D, Taylor TM, Bernard JP, Peters F, Simpson JP. The use of reduced healing times on ITI implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface: early results from clinical trials on ITI SLA implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13:144–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Darvell BW, Samman N, Luk WK, Clark RK, Tideman H. Contamination of titanium castings by aluminium oxide blasting. J Dent. 1995;23:319–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martin DC, O’Ryan FS, Indresano AT, Bogdanos P, Wang B, Hui RL, Lo JC. Characteristics of implant failures in patients with a history of oral bisphosphonate therapy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68:508–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levine RA, Sendi P, Bornstein MM. Immediate restoration of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: five-year results of a prospective case series study using clinical and radiographic data.[J]. Int J Periodontics & Restor Dent. 2012;32:39–47.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ying XD, Li WS, Feng LZ. Technology of laser surfacing modification and development situation domestically and abroad. Weld Join. 2003;1:5–8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hsu SH, Liu BS, Lin WH, Chiang HC, Huang SC, Cheng SS. Characterization and biocompatibility of a titanium dental implant with a laser irradiated and dual-acid etched surface. Biomed Mater Eng. 2007;17:53–68.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gbureck U, Masten A, Probst J, Thull R. Tribochemical structuring and coating of implant metal surfaces with titanium oxide and hydroxyapatite layers. Mater Sci Eng C. 2003;23:461–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cho SA, Jung SK. A removal torque of the laser-treated titanium implants in rabbit tibia. Biomaterials. 2003;24:4859–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kang SH, Cho SA. Comparison of removal torques for laser-treated titanium implants with anodized implants. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22:1491–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stubinger S, Etter C, Miskiewicz M, Homann F, Saldamli B, Wieland M, Sader R. Surface alterations of polished and sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implants after Er:YAG, carbon dioxide, and diode laser irradiation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:104–11.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prodanov L, Lamers E, Wolke J, Huiberts R, Jansen JA, Walboomers XF. In vivo comparison between laser-treated and grit blasted/acid etched titanium. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:234–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rong MD, Zhou L, Gou Z, Zhu AD, Zhou DF. The early osseointegration of the laser-treated and acid-etched dental implants surface: an experimental study in rabbits. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2009;20:1721–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bornstein MM, Valderrama P, Jones AA, Wilson TG, Seibl R, Cochran DL. Bone apposition around two different sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implant surfaces: a histomorphometric study in canine mandibles. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:233–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wennerberg A, Galli S, Albrektsson T. Current knowledge about the hydrophilic and nanostructured SLActive surface. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2011;3:59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S, Fiorellini JP, Fox CH, Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res. 2004;25:889–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sammer P, He W, Daniel C, Dahotre NB. Laser process effects on physical texture and wetting in implantable Ti-alloys. JOM J Miner, Met Mater Soc. 2010;62:76–83.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Degasne I, Basle MF, Demais V, Hure G, Lesourd M, Grolleau B, Mercier L, Chappard D. Effects of roughness, fibronectin and vitronectin on attachment, spreading, and proliferation of human osteoblast-like cells (Saos-2) on titanium surfaces. Calcif Tissue Int. 1999;64:499–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davies JE. Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11:391–401.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Stomatological HospitalSouthern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations