Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
On implant surfaces: a review of current knowledge and opinions
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD).
Gothenburg Univ, Dept Biomat, S-41124 Gothenburg, Sweden.
2010 (English)In: International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, ISSN 0882-2786, E-ISSN 1942-4434, Vol. 25, no 1, p. 63-74Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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 microm 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 Branemark turned, machined surface had an Sa of 0.9 microm 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2010. Vol. 25, no 1, p. 63-74
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-6842ISI: 000275493700006PubMedID: 20209188Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-77950688690Local ID: 11498OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-6842DiVA, id: diva2:1403793
Available from: 2020-02-28 Created: 2020-02-28 Last updated: 2024-06-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

PubMedScopus

Authority records

Wennerberg, AnnAlbrektsson, Tomas

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wennerberg, AnnAlbrektsson, Tomas
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 137 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf