The Osseointegration and Stability of Dental Implants with Different Surface Treatments in Animal Models: a Network Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal Sci Rep

Specialty Science

Date 2021 Jul 6

PMID 34226607

Citations 16

Authors

Chun-Ping Hao

Nan-Jue Cao

Yu-He Zhu

Wei Wang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Dental implants are commonly used to repair missing teeth. The implant surface plays a critical role in promoting osseointegration and implant success. However, little information is available about which implant surface treatment technology best promotes osseointegration and implant stability. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to evaluate the osseointegration and stability of four commonly used dental implants (SLA, SLActive, TiUnite, and Osseotite). The protocol of the current meta-analysis is registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under the code CRD42020190907 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk ). We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA and Cochrane Recommendations. Medline (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Embase, and the Web of Science databases were searched. Only randomized controlled trials were considered. Twelve studies were included in the current network meta-analysis, eleven studies were included concerning the osseointegration effect and five studies were included for stability analysis (four studies were used to assess both stability and osseointegration). Rank possibility shows that the SLActive surface best promoted bone formation at an early healing stage and TiUnite seemed to be the best surface for overall osseointegration. For stability, TiUnite seemed to be the best surface. The present network meta-analysis showed that the SLActive surface has the potential to promote osseointegration at an early stage. The TiUnite surface had the best effect on osseointegration regarding the overall healing period. The TiUnite surface also had the best effect in stability.

Citing Articles

The Interrelation between Cortical Bone Thickness and Primary and Secondary Dental Implant Stability: a Systematic Review.

Al-Juboori H, Petronis Z, Razukevicius D J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2025; 15(4):e2.

PMID: 40017687 PMC: 11863651. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2024.15402.

Dental Implant with Porous Structure and Anchorage: Design and Bench Testing in a Calf Rib Model Study.

Lovera K, Vanaclocha V, Atienza C, Vanaclocha A, Jorda-Gomez P, Saiz-Sapena N Materials (Basel). 2025; 18(3).

PMID: 39942366 PMC: 11820065. DOI: 10.3390/ma18030700.

The relationship between the secondary implant stability quotient and oxidized implant-related factors: A retrospective study.

Alzoubi F, Alhumaidan A, AlRumaih H, Alqarawi F, Omar O Heliyon. 2024; 10(20):e39156.

PMID: 39640737 PMC: 11620092. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39156.

Preclinical Experimental Study on New Cervical Implant Design to Improve Peri-Implant Tissue Healing.

Gehrke S, Cortellari G, Junior J, Eilers Treichel T, Bianchini M, Scarano A Bioengineering (Basel). 2024; 11(11).

PMID: 39593815 PMC: 11592178. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11111155.

Analysis of osseointegration of implants with macrogeometries with healing chambers: a randomized clinical trial.

da Rosa de Souza P, Manfro R, de Salles Santos F, Garcia G, Macedo N, de Macedo B BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1114.

PMID: 39300380 PMC: 11412014. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04857-8.

References

Romero-Ruiz M, Gil-Mur F, Rios-Santos J, Lazaro-Calvo P, Rios-Carrasco B, Herrero-Climent M . Influence of a Novel Surface of Bioactive Implants on Osseointegration: A Comparative and Histomorfometric Correlation and Implant Stability Study in Minipigs. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20(9). PMC: 6539430. DOI: 10.3390/ijms20092307. View

Testori T, Meltzer A, Fabbro M, Zuffetti F, Troiano M, Francetti L . Immediate occlusal loading of Osseotite implants in the lower edentulous jaw. A multicenter prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004; 15(3):278-84. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01013.x. View

Buser D, Broggini N, Wieland M, Schenk R, Denzer A, Cochran D . Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface. J Dent Res. 2004; 83(7):529-33. DOI: 10.1177/154405910408300704. View

Salanti G . Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2015; 3(2):80-97. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1037. View

Polizzi G, Gualini F, Friberg B . A two-center retrospective analysis of long-term clinical and radiologic data of TiUnite and turned implants placed in the same mouth. Int J Prosthodont. 2013; 26(4):350-8. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.3386. View

Schwarz F, Wieland M, Schwartz Z, Zhao G, Rupp F, Geis-Gerstorfer J . Potential of chemically modified hydrophilic surface characteristics to support tissue integration of titanium dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008; 88(2):544-57. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31233. View

Scacchi M, Merz B, Schar A . The development of the ITI DENTAL IMPLANT SYSTEM. Part 2: 1998-2000: Steps into the next millennium. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 11 Suppl 1:22-32. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011s1022.x. View

Sul Y, Jonsson J, Yoon G, Johansson C . Resonance frequency measurements in vivo and related surface properties of magnesium-incorporated, micropatterned and magnesium-incorporated TiUnite, Osseotite, SLA and TiOblast implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20(10):1146-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01767.x. View

Choi J, Kang S, Kim H, Yeo I . Control Variable Implants Improve Interpretation of Surface Modification and Implant Design Effects on Early Bone Responses: An In Vivo Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018; 33(5):1033-1040. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6436. View

10.

Le Guehennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y . Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater. 2006; 23(7):844-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.025. View

11.

Rupp F, Scheideler L, Olshanska N, de Wild M, Wieland M, Geis-Gerstorfer J . Enhancing surface free energy and hydrophilicity through chemical modification of microstructured titanium implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005; 76(2):323-34. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.30518. View

12.

Rodrigo D, Aracil L, Martin C, Sanz M . Diagnosis of implant stability and its impact on implant survival: a prospective case series study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 21(3):255-61. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01820.x. View

13.

Jansen J, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N . Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011; 14(4):417-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002. View

14.

Alayan J, Vaquette C, Saifzadeh S, Hutmacher D, Ivanovski S . Comparison of early osseointegration of SLA and SLActive implants in maxillary sinus augmentation: a pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 28(11):1325-1333. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12988. View

15.

Wennerberg A, Galli S, Albrektsson T . Current knowledge about the hydrophilic and nanostructured SLActive surface. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2013; 3:59-67. PMC: 3652359. DOI: 10.2147/CCIDEN.S15949. View

16.

Rouse B, Chaimani A, Li T . Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians. Intern Emerg Med. 2016; 12(1):103-111. PMC: 5247317. DOI: 10.1007/s11739-016-1583-7. View

17.

Ernst S, Stubinger S, Schupbach P, Sidler M, Klein K, Ferguson S . Comparison of two dental implant surface modifications on implants with same macrodesign: an experimental study in the pelvic sheep model. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 26(8):898-908. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12411. View

18.

Kaluderovic M, Schreckenbach J, Graf H . Titanium dental implant surfaces obtained by anodic spark deposition - From the past to the future. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016; 69:1429-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.07.068. View

19.

Glauser R, Sennerby L, Meredith N, Ree A, Lundgren A, Gottlow J . Resonance frequency analysis of implants subjected to immediate or early functional occlusal loading. Successful vs. failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004; 15(4):428-34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01036.x. View

20.

Schlegel K, Prechtl C, Most T, Seidl C, Lutz R, von Wilmowsky C . Osseointegration of SLActive implants in diabetic pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 24(2):128-34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02380.x. View