Current knowledge about the hydrophilic and nanostructured SLActive surface.

This review summarizes the present documentation for the SLActive surface, a hydrophilic and nanostructured surface produced by Straumann Company in Switzerland, and covers the results from 15 in vitro, 17 in vivo, and 16 clinical studies. The SLActive surface is a development of the large grit-blasted and acid-etched SLA surface, and is further processed to a high degree of hydrophilicity. In general, the in vitro and in vivo studies of the SLActive surface demonstrate a stronger cell and bone tissue response than for the predecessor, the SLA surface, produced by the same company. However, in most studies, this difference disappears after 6-8 weeks. In the clinical studies, a stronger bone response was reported for the SLActive surface during the early healing phase when compared with the SLA surface. However, the later biological response was quite similar for the two surfaces and both demonstrated very good clinical results.

[1]  E. Romeo,et al.  A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Titanium-13Zirconium versus Titanium Grade IV small-diameter bone level implants in edentulous mandibles--results from a 1-year observation period. , 2012, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[2]  M. Hallman,et al.  A prospective 1-year clinical and radiographic study of implants placed after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with synthetic biphasic calcium phosphate or deproteinized bovine bone. , 2012, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[3]  D. Wismeijer,et al.  Immediate loading of two implants with a mandibular implant-retained overdenture: a new treatment protocol. , 2011, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[4]  Volkan Arısan,et al.  Stability, marginal bone loss and survival of standard and modified sand-blasted, acid-etched implants in bilateral edentulous spaces: a prospective 15-month evaluation. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[5]  C. Markopoulou,et al.  Chemical modification of an implant surface increases osteogenesis and simultaneously reduces osteoclastogenesis: an in vitro study. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[6]  S. Silvestros,et al.  Analysis of osteoblastic gene expression in the early human mesenchymal cell response to a chemically modified implant surface: an in vitro study. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[7]  J. Raguse,et al.  Rehabilitation of irradiated patients with modified and conventional sandblasted acid-etched implants: preliminary results of a split-mouth study. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[8]  G. Huynh-Ba,et al.  The role of bone debris in early healing adjacent to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in man. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[9]  J. Jansen,et al.  Effect of implant surface properties on peri-implant bone healing: a histological and histomorphometric study in dogs. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  A. Petrie,et al.  The effect of SLActive surface in guided bone formation in osteoporotic-like conditions. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[11]  G. Huynh-Ba,et al.  Gene expression profile of osseointegration of a hydrophilic compared with a hydrophobic microrough implant surface. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  G. Huynh-Ba,et al.  Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[13]  M. Kürkçü,et al.  Osseointegration and stability of a modified sand-blasted acid-etched implant: an experimental pilot study in sheep. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  J. Babensee,et al.  Dendritic cell responses to surface properties of clinical titanium surfaces. , 2011, Acta biomaterialia.

[15]  C. Marchetti,et al.  Early loading of single crowns supported by 6-mm-long implants with a moderately rough surface: a prospective 2-year follow-up cohort study. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[16]  H. Götz,et al.  Long-term response of osteogenic cells on micron and submicron-scale-structured hydrophilic titanium surfaces: sequence of cell proliferation and cell differentiation. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[17]  B. Boyan,et al.  Regulation of angiogenesis during osseointegration by titanium surface microstructure and energy. , 2010, Biomaterials.

[18]  N. Lang,et al.  Factors influencing resonance frequency analysis assessed by Osstell mentor during implant tissue integration: II. Implant surface modifications and implant diameter. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[19]  Michael M Bornstein,et al.  Early loading at 21 days of non-submerged titanium implants with a chemically modified sandblasted and acid-etched surface: 3-year results of a prospective study in the posterior mandible. , 2010, Journal of periodontology.

[20]  F. Schwarz,et al.  Influence of titanium implant surface characteristics on bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects: an experimental study in dogs. , 2010, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[21]  C. Lindh,et al.  Bone density at implant sites and its relationship to assessment of bone quality and treatment outcome. , 2010, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[22]  D. Buser,et al.  Early loading after 21 days of healing of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a chemically modified sandblasted and acid-etched surface: two-year results of a prospective two-center study. , 2010, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[23]  D. Buser,et al.  Early loading of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a chemically modified sand-blasted and acid-etched surface: 6-month results of a prospective case series study in the posterior mandible focusing on peri-implant crestal bone changes and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values. , 2009, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[24]  B. Boyan,et al.  The role of phospholipase D in osteoblast response to titanium surface microstructure. , 2009, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[25]  N. Donos,et al.  Modified titanium surfaces promote accelerated osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stromal cells in vitro. , 2009, Bone.

[26]  C. Marchetti,et al.  Le Fort I osteotomy with interpositional graft and immediate loading of delayed modified SLActive surface dental implants for rehabilitation of extremely atrophied maxilla: a case report. , 2009, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[27]  M. Wieland,et al.  Proliferation, behavior, and cytokine gene expression of human umbilical vascular endothelial cells in response to different titanium surfaces. , 2009, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[28]  Zhi-Yong Zhang,et al.  The influence of surface energy on early adherent events of osteoblast on titanium substrates. , 2009, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[29]  Zhi-Yong Zhang,et al.  Bone apposition around two different sandblasted, large-grit and acid-etched implant surfaces at sites with coronal circumferential defects: an experimental study in dogs. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[30]  S. Ferguson,et al.  Potential of chemically modified hydrophilic surface characteristics to support tissue integration of titanium dental implants. , 2009, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[31]  J. Ganeles,et al.  Immediate and early loading of Straumann implants with a chemically modified surface (SLActive) in the posterior mandible and maxilla: 1-year results from a prospective multicenter study. , 2008, Clinical oral implants research.

[32]  J. Korostoff,et al.  Immediate and early non-occlusal loading of Straumann implants with a chemically modified surface (SLActive) in the posterior mandible and maxilla: interim results from a prospective multicenter randomized-controlled study. , 2008, Clinical oral implants research.

[33]  D. Cochran,et al.  Bone apposition around two different sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implant surfaces: a histomorphometric study in canine mandibles. , 2008, Clinical oral implants research.

[34]  F. Schwarz,et al.  Bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects at non-submerged and submerged chemically modified (SLActive) and conventional SLA titanium implants: an immunohistochemical study in dogs. , 2007, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[35]  F. Schwarz,et al.  Effects of surface hydrophilicity and microtopography on early stages of soft and hard tissue integration at non-submerged titanium implants: an immunohistochemical study in dogs. , 2007, The Journal of Periodontology.

[36]  Helge Toutenburg,et al.  Enhanced implant stability with a chemically modified SLA surface: a randomized pilot study. , 2007, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[37]  M. Wieland,et al.  The initial attachment and subsequent behavior regulation of osteoblasts by dental implant surface modification. , 2007, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[38]  S. Ferguson,et al.  Biomechanical evaluation of the interfacial strength of a chemically modified sandblasted and acid-etched titanium surface. , 2006, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[39]  D. Seabold,et al.  Effects of implant surface microtopography on osteoblast gene expression. , 2005, Clinical oral implants research.

[40]  F Rupp,et al.  High surface energy enhances cell response to titanium substrate microstructure. , 2005, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[41]  R E Baier,et al.  Surface properties determine bioadhesive outcomes: methods and results. , 1984, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[42]  N. Donos,et al.  Effect of immediate or delayed loading following immediate placement of implants with a modified surface. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[43]  S. Ivanovski,et al.  The influence of surface microroughness and hydrophilicity of titanium on the up-regulation of TGFβ/BMP signalling in osteoblasts. , 2011, Biomaterials.

[44]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  On implant surfaces: a review of current knowledge and opinions. , 2010, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[45]  T. Wilson,et al.  A prospective study of 3 weeks' loading of chemically modified titanium implants in the maxillary molar region: 1-year results. , 2009, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[46]  M. Wieland,et al.  Differentiation and cytokine synthesis of human alveolar osteoblasts compared to osteoblast-like cells (MG63) in response to titanium surfaces. , 2008, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[47]  B. Boyan,et al.  Requirement for both micron- and submicron scale structure for synergistic responses of osteoblasts to substrate surface energy and topography. , 2007, Biomaterials.

[48]  M. Dard,et al.  Histological and immunohistochemical analysis of initial and early osseous integration at chemically modified and conventional SLA titanium implants: preliminary results of a pilot study in dogs. , 2007, Clinical oral implants research.

[49]  M. Dard,et al.  Bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects at chemically modified (SLActive) and conventional SLA titanium implants: a pilot study in dogs. , 2007, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[50]  M. Dard,et al.  Histological and immunohistochemical analysis of initial and early subepithelial connective tissue attachment at chemically modified and conventional SLA®titanium implants. A pilot study in dogs , 2007, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[51]  L. Carlsson,et al.  Bone response to plasma-cleaned titanium implants. , 1989, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.