To the top

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

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

Oral implant surfaces: Pa… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
To content Read more about how we use cookies on

Oral implant surfaces: Part 1--review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them

Journal article
Authors Tomas Albrektsson
Ann Wennerberg
Published in Int J Prosthodont
Volume 17
Issue 5
Pages 536-43
Publication year 2004
Published at Institute of Surgical Sciences, Department of Biomaterials
Institute of Odontology, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Technology
Pages 536-43
Language en
Keywords Calcium Phosphates, Coated Materials, Biocompatible, Dental Etching, *Dental Implants, Dental Polishing, *Dental Prosthesis Design, Fluorides, Growth Substances, Humans, *Osseointegration, Surface Properties, Wettability
Subject categories Dentistry


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 microm) 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 irregularities-biomechanical 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.

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?