Oral Implant Surfaces: Part 1ÇƒÓReview Focusing on Topographic and Chemical Properties of Different Surfaces and In Vivo Responses to them

Oral Implant Surfaces: Part 1ÇƒÓReview Focusing on Topographic and Chemical Properties of Different Surfaces and In Vivo Responses to them
September/October 2004
Tomas Albrektsson, MD, PhD, ODhc/Ann Wennerberg, DDS, PhD
International Journal of Prosthodontics, Volume 17, Issue 5
You can view the abstract online. A subscription is required to view the full text or it can be purchased online.
Purpose: This article reviews the topographic and chemical properties of different oral implant surfaces and in vivo responses to them.
Materials and Methods: The article considers detailed mechanical, topographic, and physical characteristics of implant surfaces. Anchorage mechanisms such as biomechanical and biochemical bonding are examined. Osteoattraction and doped surfaces are discussed.
Results: Surface quality of an oral implant may be subdivided into mechanical, topographic, and physicochemical properties. Topographic properties are evaluated at the micrometer level of resolution. Moderately rough surfaces (Sa between 1.0 and 2.0 ¨µm) show stronger bone responses than smoother or rougher surfaces. The majority of currently marketed implants are moderately rough. Oral implants permit bone ingrowth into minor surface irregularitiesÇƒÓbiomechanical bonding or osseointegration. Additional biochemical bonding seems possible with certain surfaces. Osteoattraction is a commercial term without precise biologic correspondence. Surfaces doped with biochemical agents such as bone growth factors have been developed.
Conclusion: Moderately roughened surfaces seem to have some clinical advantages over smoother or rougher surfaces, but the differences are small and often not statistically significant. Bioactive implants may offer some promise.