CODS Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 5 , ISSUE 2 ( September, 2013 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT SURFACE TREATMENT OF DENTAL IMPLANTS ON OSSEOINTEGRATION : A REVIEW

K.T. ROOPA, K. RAKSHA, SAGAR SHAH

Citation Information : ROOPA K, RAKSHA K, SHAH S. EFFECT OF DIFFERENT SURFACE TREATMENT OF DENTAL IMPLANTS ON OSSEOINTEGRATION : A REVIEW. CODS J Dent 2013; 5 (2):34-37.

DOI: 10.5005/cods-5-2-34

License: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

Published Online: 00-09-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2013; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

AIM & OBJECTIVE

Aim of this paper is to discuss various surface treatment methods of Implants and its effect on osseointegration.

CONCLUSION

There are various surface modified implants available. Studies have proven that these implants show better osseointegration compared to machined implants.


PDF Share
  1. A histomorphometric evaluation of screw-shaped implants each prepared with two surface roughnesses. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:11-9.
  2. Histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implant Res 1996;6:24--30.
  3. Roughness response genes in osteoblasts. Bone 2004;35:124-33.
  4. Dissemination of wear particles to the liver, spleen and abdominal lymph nodes of patients with hip or knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Arn 2000;82:457-77.
  5. Early loading of sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) implants: a prospective split-mouth comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:572-8.
  6. A prospective 5-year study of fixed partial prostheses supported by implants with machined and TiO2-blasted surface. J Prosthodont 2001; 10:2-7.
  7. A 10-year follow-up study of titanium dioxide-blasted implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7:36-42.
  8. 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 2002; 17:377-83.
  9. Bone response to machined and resorbable blast material titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:2-8.
  10. Comparative investigation of the surface of commercial titanium dental implants. Part 1: chemical composition. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2002;13:535-48.
  11. Time-dependent morphology and adhesion of osteoblastic cells on titanium model surfaces featuring scale-resolved topography. Biomaterials 2004;25:2695-711.
  12. Red blood cell and platelet interactions with titanium implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:530-9.
  13. Bone-implant contact on machined and dual acid-etched surfaces after 2 months of healing in the human maxilla. J Periodontol 2003;74:945-56.
  14. Pre-treatment of titanium implants with fluoride improves their retention” in bone. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1995;6:749-58.
  15. Improved retention and bone-to-implant contact with fluoride-modified titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19:659-66.
  16. Fluoride modification effects on osteoblast behaviorandbone formation at TiO(2) grit-blasted c. p. titaniumendosseous implants. Biomaterials 2006;27:926-36.
  17. Fracture mechanisms of retrieved titanium screw threadin dental implants. Biomaterials 2002;23:2459-65.
  18. Oxidized implants and their influence on the bone response. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2001; 12: 1025-31.
  19. Le Soueidan, A. Layrolle, P. Amouriq. Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. dental materials 23 (2007) 844-85.
  20. Kohala, Maria Bächlea, Wael Atta, Saad Chaara, Brigitte Altmanna, Alexander Renzb, Frank Butza. Osteoblast and bone tissue response to surface modified zirconia and titanium implant materials. Dental materials, 29 (2013) 763-776
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.