2022
DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics7020074
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biomimetic Implant Surfaces and Their Role in Biological Integration—A Concise Review

Abstract: Background: The increased use of dental implants in oral rehabilitation has been followed by the development of new biomaterials as well as improvements in the performance of biomaterials already in use. This triggers the need for appropriate analytical approaches to assess the biological and, ultimately, clinical benefits of these approaches. Aims: To address the role of physical, chemical, mechanical, and biological characteristics in order to determine the critical parameters to improve biological responses… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 123 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The influential factors on CA apart from surface roughness may be originated from surface chemistry and texture form on the surface, as reported elsewhere. 1,11,39,45,48 Therefore, it is thought that the non-linear relation between CA and Sa values may be related to the surface chemistry and texture form of the surface. Figure 2(d)–(e) depict the images captured during the wettability test of specimens.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The influential factors on CA apart from surface roughness may be originated from surface chemistry and texture form on the surface, as reported elsewhere. 1,11,39,45,48 Therefore, it is thought that the non-linear relation between CA and Sa values may be related to the surface chemistry and texture form of the surface. Figure 2(d)–(e) depict the images captured during the wettability test of specimens.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some studies indicate that the surface roughness is in the microscale range, 1-10 mm, to promote contact and adhesion between the implant surface and the bone and speed osseointegration. 39,40 It has been emphasized in relevant studies that hydrophilic surfaces are more advantageous in providing osseointegration compared to hydrophobic surfaces. 24,[41][42][43] To verify hydrophilicity, statistical assessments of surface roughness and contact angle were performed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CAP-treated surfaces and leukocyte response have been investigated before, albeit to a lesser extent with argon plasma. Oxygen but not nitrogen or air plasma led to a pro-inflammatory response (increased IL1β and TNFα release) [ 77 , 81 , 82 ]. Additionally, sample fixation did not affect leukocyte response, which is in line with previous findings [ 83 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In comparison to alternative implant designs, a surface topography with an appropriate porosity structure can offer various biomedical benefits for bone-implant integration. [9][10][11] In multiple preclinical studies, several researchers investigated the impact of porous-surface design on implant osseointegration. 12,13 This regeneration effect can be achieved by adding a pharmacological agent to the chemical composition of the material.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%