To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

On osseointegration in re… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
To content Read more about how we use cookies on

On osseointegration in relation to implant surfaces

Journal article
Authors Tomas Albrektsson
Ann Wennerberg
Published in Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
Volume 21
Pages 4-7
ISSN 1523-0899
Publication year 2019
Published at Institute of Odontology
Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Biomaterials
Pages 4-7
Language en
Keywords implant surface, osseointegration, titanium, foreign-body reaction, titanium implants, osteogenic markers, gene-expression, bone loss, proliferation, magnesium, adhesion, tissue, discs
Subject categories Biomaterials


Background The understanding of mechanisms of osseointegration as well as applied knowledge about oral implant surfaces are of paramount importance for successful clinical results. Purpose The aim of the present article is to present an overview of osseointegration mechanisms and an introduction to surface innovations with relevance for osseointegration that will be published in the same supplement of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. Materials and Methods The present article is a narrative review of some osseointegration and implant surface-related details. Results and Conclusions Osseointegration has a changed definition since it is realized today that oral implants are but foreign bodies and that this fact explains osseointegration as a protection mechanism of the tissues. Given adequate stability, bone tissue is formed around titanium implants to shield them from the tissues. Oral implant surfaces may be characterized by microroughness and nanoroughness, by surface chemical composition and by physical and mechanical parameters. An isotropic, moderately rough implant surface such as seen on the TiUnite device has displayed improved clinical results compared to previously used minimally rough or rough surfaces. However, there is a lack of clinical evidence supporting any particular type of nanoroughness pattern that, at best, is documented with results from animal studies. It is possible, but as yet unproven, that clinical results may be supported by a certain chemical composition of the implant surface. The same can be said with respect to hydrophilicity of implant surfaces; positive animal data may suggest some promise, but there is a lack of clinical evidence that hydrophilic implants result in improved clinical outcome of more hydrophobic surfaces. With respect to mechanical properties, it seems obvious that those must be encompassing the loading of oral implants, but we need more research on the mechanically ideal implant surface from a clinical aspect.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?