We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18 (2003), No. 3     15. May 2003
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18 (2003), No. 3  (15.05.2003)

Page 341-348

Histologic Evaluation of Bone Response to Oxidized and Turned Titanium Micro-implants in Human Jawbone
Ivanoff, Carl-Johan / Widmark, Göran /Johansson, Carina B. / Wennerberg, Ann
Purpose: To evaluate the human bone tissue response to 2 surfaces (oxidized or turned) on commercially available titanium implants.
Materials and Methods: Screw-type turned (control) and oxidized (test) micro-implants were manufactured in the same manner as commercially available turned and oxidized (TiUnite, Brånemark System) implants. The thickness of the oxide layer of the test implants was on average 10 µm, corresponding to the oxide thickness of the apical part of the TiUnite implant. Twenty patients received 1 test and 1 control micro-implant each during implant surgery. Before placement, the surface topography of the implants was characterized with an optical confocal laser profilometer. After a mean healing period of 6.6 months in the maxilla and 3.5 months in the mandible, the micro-implants and surrounding tissue were removed with a trephine bur. Histologic sections were produced, and the specimens were analyzed histomorphometrically.
Results: Surface roughness and enlargement were greater for the oxidized implants than for the turned implants. All micro-implants, except for 2 controls, were found to be clinically stable at the time of retrieval. Histomorphometric evaluation demonstrated significantly higher bone-to-implant contact for the oxidized implants, whether placed in the maxilla or in the mandible. Significantly more bone was found inside the threaded area for the oxidized implants placed in the mandible and maxilla, but there was no difference between implants with regard to position (maxilla or mandible).
Discussion: The stronger bone response to the oxidized implants may have contributed to the fact that 2 control implants but no test implants were lost. The reason for these findings may depend on one or multiple differences of the surfaces between test and control implants: (1) the thicker oxide layer itself, (2) increased surface roughness, (3) different surface morphology in terms of porosity, or (4) change in crystal structure.
Conclusion: The present histologic study in human jawbone demonstrated a significantly higher bone response for anodic oxidized titanium implants than for implants with a turned surface.