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
Sitemap
To content Read more about how we use cookies on gu.se

Oral implant surfaces: Part 2--review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surfaces

Journal article
Authors Tomas Albrektsson
Ann Wennerberg
Published in Int J Prosthodont
Volume 17
Issue 5
Pages 544-64
Publication year 2004
Published at Institute of Surgical Sciences, Department of Biomaterials
Institute of Odontology, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Technology
Pages 544-64
Language en
Links www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Keywords Bone Transplantation, Dental Implantation, Endosseous, *Dental Implants, *Dental Prosthesis Design, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Osseointegration, Prospective Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials, Retrospective Studies, Surface Properties
Subject categories Dentistry

Abstract

PURPOSE: This article reviews clinical knowledge of selected oral implant surfaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The surfaces most commonly used in clinical practice, marketed by the five largest oral implant companies, are identified; their clinical documentation was scrutinized following a strict protocol. Experimental knowledge of the surfaces is briefly summarized. Retrospective, prospective, and comparative clinical studies were analyzed separately, as were studies of implants in conjunction with bone grafts. RESULTS: TiUnite anodized surfaces are clinically documented in 1- to 2-year follow-up studies at best, with failures at about 3%. Sandblasted and acid-etched SLA surfaces are documented with good clinical results for up to 3 years. Osseotite dual acid-etched implants are documented with good clinical results for up to 5 years. Frialit-2 sandblasted and etched implants are positively documented for about 3 years in one study only. The Tioblast implant is the only design documented for survival over 10 years of follow-up and success over 7 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Generally, oral implants are introduced clinically without adequate clinical documentation. Implant companies initiate clinical documentation after product launch. The standards of clinical reporting have improved over the years. Proper long-term reports have been published for only one surface, Tioblast.

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

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?