Implant Surface Roughness and Bone Healing: a Systematic Review

Abstract

A systematic review was performed on studies investigating the effects of implant surface roughness on bone response and implant fixation. We searched the literature using MEDLINE from 1953 to 2003. Inclusion criteria were: (1) abstracts of animal studies investigating implant surface roughness and bone healing; (2) observations of three-month bone healing, surface topography measurements, and biomechanical tests; (3) provision of data on surface roughness, bone-to-implant contact, and biomechanical test values. The literature search revealed 5966 abstracts. There were 470, 23, and 14 articles included in the first, second, and third selection steps, respectively. Almost all papers showed an enhanced bone-to-implant contact with increasing surface roughness. Six comparisons were significantly positive for the relationship of bone-to-implant contact and surface roughness. Also, a significant relation was found between push-out strength and surface roughness. Unfortunately, the eventually selected studies were too heterogeneous for inference of data. Nevertheless, the statistical analysis on the available data provided supportive evidence for a positive relationship between bone-to-implant contact and surface roughness.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albrektsson T (2001). Is surgical skill more important for clinical success than changes in implant hardware? Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 3:174–175.

Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A (2004a). Oral implant surfaces: Part 1—review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont 17:536–543.

Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A (2004b). Oral implant surfaces: Part 2—review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 17:544–564.

Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S, Fiorellini JP, Fox CH, Stich H (1991). Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 25:889–902.

Carlsson L, Rostlund T, Albrektsson B, Albrektsson T (1988). Removal torques for polished and rough titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 3:21–24.

Cochran DL (1999). A comparison of endosseous dental implant surfaces. J Periodontol 70:1523–1539.

Dhert WJ, Klein CP, Wolke JG, van der Velde EA, de Groot K, Rozing PM (1991). A mechanical investigation of fluorapatite, magnesiumwhitlockite, and hydroxylapatite plasma-sprayed coatings in goats. J Biomed Mater Res 25:1183–1200.

Dhert WJ, Verheyen CC, Braak LH, de Wijn JR, Klein CP, de Groot K, et al. (1992). A finite element analysis of the push-out test: influence of test conditions. J Biomed Mater Res 26:119–130.

Dhert WJ, Klein CP, Jansen JA, van der Velde EA, Vriesde RC, Rozing PM, et al. (1993). A histological and histomorphometrical investigation of fluorapatite, magnesiumwhitlockite, and hydroxylapatite plasma-sprayed coatings in goats. J Biomed Mater Res 27:127–138.

10.

Gotfredsen K, Nimb L, Hjorting-Hansen E, Jensen JS, Holmen A (1992). Histomorphometric and removal torque analysis for TiO₂-blasted titanium implants. An experimental study on dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 3:77–84.

11.

Gotfredsen K, Wennerberg A, Johansson C, Skovgaard LT, Hjorting-Hansen E (1995). Anchorage of TiO₂-blasted, HA-coated, and machined implants: an experimental study with rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res 29:1223–1231.

12.

Hallgren C, Reimers H, Gold J, Wennerberg A (2001a). The importance of surface texture for bone integration of screw shaped implants: an in vivo study of implants patterned by photolithography. J Biomed Mater Res 57:485–496.

13.

Hallgren C, Reimers H, Chakarov D, Gold J, Wennerberg A (2003). An in vivo study of bone response to implants topographically modified by laser micromachining. Biomaterials 24:701–710.

14.

Jokstad A, Braegger U, Brunski JB, Carr AB, Naert I, Wennerberg A (2003). Quality of dental implants. Int Dent J 53(6 Suppl 2):409–443.

15.

Lee JJ, Rouhfar L, Beirne OR (2000). Survival of hydroxyapatite-coated implants: a meta-analytic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:1372–1379; discussion 1379–1380.

16.

London RM, Roberts FA, Baker DA, Rohrer MD, O’Neal RB (2002). Histologic comparison of a thermal dual-etched implant surface to machined, TPS, and HA surfaces: bone contact in vivo in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17:369–376.

17.

Macdonald W, Campbell P, Fisher J, Wennerberg A (2004). Variation in surface texture measurements. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 15:262–269.

18.

Morra M, Cassinelli C, Bruzzone G, Carpi A, Di Santi G, Giardino R, et al. (2003). Surface chemistry effects of topographic modification of titanium dental implant surfaces: 1. Surface analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:40–45.

19.

Novaes AB Jr, Souza SL, de Oliveira PT, Souza AM (2002). Histomorphometric analysis of the bone-implant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatments placed side by side in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17:377–383.

20.

Rupprecht S, Bloch A, Rosiwal S, Neukam FW, Wiltfang J (2002). Examination of the bone-metal interface of titanium implants coated by the microwave plasma chemical vapor deposition method. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17:778–785.

21.

Sandborn PM, Cook SD, Spires WP, Kester MA (1988). Tissue response to porous-coated implants lacking initial bone apposition. J Arthroplasty 3:337–346.

22.

Stach RM, Kohles SS (2003). A meta-analysis examining the clinical survivability of machined-surfaced and osseotite implants in poor-quality bone. Implant Dent 12:87–96.

23.

Thompson JI, Gregson PJ, Revell PA (1999). Analysis of push-out test data based on interfacial fracture energy. J Mater Sci Mater Med 10:863–868.

24.

Vercaigne S, Wolke JG, Naert I, Jansen JA (1998a). Bone healing capacity of titanium plasma-sprayed and hydroxylapatite-coated oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 9:261–271.

25.

Vercaigne S, Wolke JG, Naert I, Jansen JA (2000a). A mechanical evaluation of TiO2-gritblasted and Ca-P magnetron sputter coated implants placed into the trabecular bone of the goat: Part 1. Clin Oral Implants Res 11:305–313.

26.

Vercaigne S, Wolke JG, Naert I, Jansen JA (2000b). A histological evaluation of TiO2-gritblasted and Ca-P magnetron sputter coated implants placed into the trabecular bone of the goat: Part 2. Clin Oral Implants Res 11:314–324.

27.

Wennerberg A (1996). On surface roughness and implant incorporation (dissertation). Göteborg, Sweden: University of Göteborg.

28.

Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T (2000). Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:331–344.

29.

Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Johansson C, Andersson B (1996a). Experimental study of turned and grit-blasted screw-shaped implants with special emphasis on effects of blasting material and surface topography. Biomaterials 17:15–22.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.40 MB