Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Saveetha Dental College & Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical & Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai-600077, Tamil Nadu, India.
J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2023;33(2):71-77. doi: 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2022042612.
The aim of this review was to perform a comprehensive overview of evidence pertaining to the influence of various surface modifications on the surface roughness, bone implant contact, and the success and complication rates of the implants. Modified sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) implants (SLActive implants) have a higher implant stability quotient compared with conventional SLA implants. Also, when compared between the implant surfaces from various manufacturers, Biomet 3i Nanotite implants were shown to have a relatively higher implant stability quotient compared to Straumann implants as well as the Biomet Osseotite implants. Only one study reports the insertion torque values as obtained by the various implant surfaces, with the findings being statistically similar for all the types, and a higher mean value for Biomet 3i Nanotite implants. Among SLA and SLActive surfaces, the latter was found to have a lower marginal bone loss, and among Astratech implants, the marginal bone loss levels were similar for Osseospeed and Tioblast surfaces. When Osseospeed, TiUnite and SLActive surfaces were compared, Osseospeed was found to have the minimum bone loss while TiUnite was found to have the highest. The bone implant contact percentages are similar and satisfactory for most of the implant surface modifications that are available currently. Upon assessing the recent literature on the survival rates for implants with various surface modifications, it was found that among Nobel Biocare implants, the survival rate was higher for TiUnite implants, compared with the turned surfaces. Surprisingly, among the Straumann implant surfaces, the survival rates were found to be higher for the SLA implants when compared to the modified SLA implants. Only one of the included studies evaluated the survival rate for Astratech implant surfaces and found a 100% survival rate for both the Osseospeed and Tioblast surface implants. Therefore, major advancements have been made in developing novel surfaces of dental implants. The numerous innovations set the stage for rehabilitating patients with high success and predictable survival rates even in challenging conditions.
本综述的目的是全面概述各种表面改性对表面粗糙度、骨植入物接触以及植入物成功率和并发症发生率的影响。与传统的喷砂酸蚀（SLA）种植体相比，改良的喷砂大颗粒酸蚀（SLA）种植体（SLActive 种植体）具有更高的种植体稳定性系数。此外，在比较不同制造商的种植体表面时，与 Straumann 种植体和 Biomet Osseotite 种植体相比，Biomet 3i Nanotite 种植体具有相对更高的种植体稳定性系数。只有一项研究报告了各种种植体表面获得的插入扭矩值，所有类型的发现均具有统计学相似性，而 Biomet 3i Nanotite 种植体的平均值较高。在 SLA 和 SLActive 表面中，后者发现具有较低的边缘骨丢失，而在 Astratech 种植体中，Osseospeed 和 Tioblast 表面的边缘骨丢失水平相似。在比较 Osseospeed、TiUnite 和 SLActive 表面时，发现 Osseospeed 具有最小的骨丢失，而 TiUnite 具有最大的骨丢失。目前可获得的大多数种植体表面改性的骨植入物接触百分比相似且令人满意。评估各种表面改性种植体的存活率的最新文献后发现，在 Nobel Biocare 种植体中，与传统表面相比，TiUnite 种植体的存活率更高。令人惊讶的是，在 Straumann 种植体表面中，与改良的 SLA 种植体相比，SLA 种植体的存活率更高。只有一项纳入的研究评估了 Astratech 种植体表面的存活率，并发现 Osseospeed 和 Tioblast 表面种植体的存活率均为 100％。因此，在开发新型牙科种植体表面方面取得了重大进展。这些创新为患者提供了更高的成功率和可预测的存活率，即使在具有挑战性的条件下也能进行修复。
