Results of a new animal study examining how implant surfaces affect osseointegration have concluded that implants with both turned and rough surfaces lead to successful surgeries, but that rough surfaces are slightly more effective.

Two surface treatments were compared during the study: turned and moderately rough or SLA (sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched). With SLA implants, the surface is first sandblasted with particles of zirconia followed by acid-etching to achieve the desired roughness.

The experiment to compare the two surfaces was carried out in dogs. Each animal received an anterior implant with a turned surface and a posterior implant with a moderately rough surface.

After four months of healing, all of the implants were observed to be completely successful. The researchers then examined the mineralised bone-to-implant contact to see which implant had osseointegrated the best. They found that the moderately rough surface had led to modestly better osseointegration.

The results of this experiment echoed previous studies which found that moderately rough surfaces performed better. However, one of the authors highlights that there are still many advantages to using turned surfaces. Marino Caroprese said ‘The turned surfaces require less surface treatment and this may decrease the cost of production. Moreover, some studies have shown slower progression of periimplantitis at turned compared with rough surfaces.’

As the rough surface performed only slightly better than the turned surface, Caroprese goes on to say that more research should be conducted on turned surfaces as they too may achieve optimal osseointegration. The study was conducted by researchers from a range of international universities and first appeared in the Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation.