Effect of modifications of dual acid‐etched implant surfaces on peri‐implant bone formation. Part I: organic coatings

Schliephake, Henning; Aref, A.A.; Scharnweber, Dieter; Bierbaum, Susanne; Sewing, A.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01603.x

Cited by 76 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Schliephake et al 36 X (**) X (*) X (*/****) 18. Schliephake et al 9 X (*/**) X (*) X (**) X (*/****) 19. Schliephake et al 30 X (*/**) X (*) X (*) 20.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Descriptive Resultsunclassified

“…Schliephake et al 36 BMP-2 Collagen 1 1 CS Dog Mandible 8. Schliephake et al 9 BMP-2 RGD Collagen 1 1 CS Dog Mandible 9. Schliephake et al 30 HA Collagen 1 Dog Mandible 10.…”

Section: Synthesis Of Meta-analysis Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include coatings with extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins, peptides, growth factors, calcium phosphate phases, lipids, and so on. In animal studies, the application of high dosages of the growth factor BMP-2 10 as well as other approaches using ECM components like collagen and glycosminoglycans 9,11 or peptides derived from ECM proteins like RGD peptide 12 have been reported to show an effect on bone healing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 Yet another surface modification to further stimulate osseointegration is the coating of implant surfaces with biological components. [7][8][9] For bone, these may be organic as well as inorganic in nature, and both can potentially influence cellular activity during periimplant healing. In this context, many different types of surface coatings have been analyzed in recent years.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

Jenny

Jauernik

Bierbaum

et al. 2016

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation in comparison to an uncoated titanium reference surface in experimental large animal models. The analysis was structured according to the PRISMA criteriae. Of the1077 studies, 30 studies met the inclusion criteriae. Nineteen studies examined the bone implant contact (BIC) and were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the mean increase in BIC for the test surfaces compared to the reference surfaces was 3.7 percentage points (pp) (95% CI -3.9-11.2, p = 0.339). Analyzing the increase in BIC for specific coated surfaces in comparison to uncoated reference surfaces, inorganic surface coatings showed a significant mean increase in BIC of 14.7 pp (95% CI 10.6-18.9, p < 0.01), extracellular matrix (ECM) surface coatings showed an increase of 10.0 pp (95% CI 4.4-15.6, p < 0.001), and peptide coatings showed a statistical trend with 7.1 pp BIC increase (95% CI -0.8-15.0, p = 0.08). In this review, no statistically significant difference could be found for growth factor surface coatings (observed difference -3.3 pp, 95% CI -16.5-9.9, p = 0.6). All analyses are exploratory in nature. The results show a statistically significant effect of inorganic and ECM coatings on periimplant bone formation. Abstract: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation in comparison to an uncoated titanium reference surface in experimental large animal models. The analysis was structured according to the PRISMA criteriae. Of the1077 studies, 30 studies met the inclusion criteriae. Nineteen studies examined the bone implant contact (BIC) and were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the mean increase in BIC for the test surfaces compared to the reference surfaces was 3.7 percentage points (pp) (95% CI 23.9-11.2, p 5 0.339). Analyzing the increase in BIC for specific coated surfaces in comparison to uncoated reference surfaces, inorganic surface coatings showed a significant mean increase in BIC of 14.7 pp (95% CI 10.6-18.9, p < 0.01), extracellular matrix (ECM) surface coatings showed an increase of 10.0 pp (95% CI 4.4-15.6, p < 0.001), and peptide coatings showed a statistical trend with 7.1 pp BIC increase (95% CI 20.8-15.0, p 5 0.08). In this review, no statistically significant difference could be found for growth factor surface coatings (observed difference 23.3 pp, 95% CI 216.5-9.9, p 5 0.6). All analyses are exploratory in nature. The results show a statistically significant effect of inorganic and ECM coatings on periimplant bone formation.

show abstract

“…Schliephake et al 36 X (**) X (*) X (*/****) 18. Schliephake et al 9 X (*/**) X (*) X (**) X (*/****) 19. Schliephake et al 30 X (*/**) X (*) X (*) 20.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Descriptive Resultsunclassified

“…Schliephake et al 36 BMP-2 Collagen 1 1 CS Dog Mandible 8. Schliephake et al 9 BMP-2 RGD Collagen 1 1 CS Dog Mandible 9. Schliephake et al 30 HA Collagen 1 Dog Mandible 10.…”

Section: Synthesis Of Meta-analysis Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

Jenny

Jauernik

Bierbaum

et al. 2016

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In humans, 2 months following implant placement, the surface presented greater bone/implant contact than machined surface implants [35]. There are many works in the relevant literature on animals that address the aspect of speed of osseointegration on bioactive surfaces [14,18,31,[36][37][38], but there are few works on humans defining the necessary amount of time needed before placing a load on such implants [3]. Therefore, in this study, we chose to verify the secondary stability of implants produced by the company Connection, using a Vulcano surface (anodization) in humans.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Evaluation of Anodized Surface Implants Submitted to a Counter Torque of 25 Ncm After 60 Days of Osseointegration: Study in Humans

Manfro

Bortoluzzi

Fabris

et al. 2013

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Decreasing the time needed for osseointegration has always been a big challenge for modern implantodontics. The main factor which helps to decrease the time needed for osseointegration is the newly developed surfaces being used, as well as their microstructures, in relation to their osseoinductive properties. The aim of this work is to clinically evaluate the osseointegration of the implants when using The anodized surfaces in humans, following a 60 days-period of osseointegration.Methodology Forty-Five implants were placed in different kinds of bones, according to the technique recommended by the manufacturer. Those implants were opened after 60 days of osseointegration. The success of evaluation was made through assessing the counter torque resistance of 25 Ncm. The implants which could withstand the applied torque were considered osseointegrated. Results Of the forty-five implants made in different kinds of bones, only one failed to present osseointegration, resulting in a success rate of 97.7 %. Conclusions With this methodology it was possible to conclude that anodized surface implants present primary osseointegration after 60 days of healing, after which they can function normally.

show abstract

Surface Characteristics and Cell Adhesion: A Comparative Study of Four Commercial Dental Implants

Liu

Lei

Dusevich

et al. 2015

Journal of Prosthodontics on Dental Implants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of modifications of dual acid‐etched implant surfaces on peri‐implant bone formation. Part I: organic coatings

Abstract: It is concluded that with the exception of Coll I, the tested organic surface coatings on DAE surfaces did not improve peri-implant bone formation when compared with the DAE surfaces but enhanced BIC when compared with the MSs.

Cited by 76 publications

References 30 publications

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

Clinical Evaluation of Anodized Surface Implants Submitted to a Counter Torque of 25 Ncm After 60 Days of Osseointegration: Study in Humans

Surface Characteristics and Cell Adhesion: A Comparative Study of Four Commercial Dental Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About