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
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25 (2010), No. 1     15. Jan. 2010
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25 (2010), No. 1  (15.01.2010)

Page 63-74, PubMed:20209188


On Implant Surfaces: A Review of Current Knowledge and Opinions
Wennerberg, Ann / Albrektsson, Tomas
The aims of the present review are (1) to identify essential surface parameters; (2) to present an overview of surface characteristics at the micrometer and nanometer levels of resolution relevant for the four most popular oral implant systems; (3) to discuss potential advantages of nanoroughness, hydrophilicity, and biochemical bonding; and (4) to suggest a hypothetical common mechanism behind strong bone responses to novel implant surfaces from different commercial companies. Oral implants from four major companies varied in average surface roughness (Sa) from 0.3 to 1.78 µm and in the developed surface area ratio (Sdr) from 24% to 143%, with the smoothest implants originating from Biomet 3i and the roughest from Institut Straumann. The original Brånemark turned, machined surface had an Sa of 0.9 µm and an Sdr of 34%, making it clearly rougher than the smoothest implants examined. When evaluated for nanometer roughness, there was a substantial variation in Sa in the different implants from the four major companies. Novel implants from Biomet 3i, AstraTech, and Straumann differed from their respective predecessors in microroughness, physicochemical properties, and nano - roughness. When examined with scanning electron microscopy at high magnification, it was noted that these novel implant surfaces all had particular nanoroughness structures that were not present in their respective predecessors; this finding was suggested as a possible common mechanism behind the demonstrated stronger bone responses to these implants compared to adequate controls.

Keywords: osseointegration, surface chemistry, surface microroughness, surface nanoroughness, surface physics