Identification card and codification of the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 dental implant surfaces. Part 4: Resorbable Blasting Media (RBM), Dual Acid-Etched (DAE), Subtractive Impregnated Micro/Nanotextured (SIMN) and related surfaces (Group 2B, other subtractive process)

Background and objectives. Dental implants are commonly used in dental therapeutics, but dental practitioners only have limited information about the characteristics of the implant materials they take the responsibility to place in their patients. The objective of this work is to describe the chemical and morphological characteristics of 62 implant surfaces available on the market and establish their respective Identification (ID) Card, following the Implant Surface Identification Standard (ISIS). In this fourth part, surfaces produced through other subtractive processes (resorbable blasting media RBM, dual acid-etching DAE, subtractive impregnation micro/nanotexturization SIMN and others) were investigated.

[1]  J. Bernard,et al.  Identification card and codification of the chemical and morphological characteristics of 14 dental implant surfaces. , 2011, The Journal of oral implantology.

[2]  Lyndon F Cooper,et al.  Advancing dental implant surface technology--from micron- to nanotopography. , 2008, Biomaterials.

[3]  S. Livne,et al.  Retrospective Clinical Evaluation of Tapered Implants: 10-year Follow-up of Delayed and Immediate Placement of Maxillary Implants , 2012, Implant dentistry.

[4]  M. Janal,et al.  Biomechanical evaluation of endosseous implants at early implantation times: a study in dogs. , 2010, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[5]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  The peri-implantitis: implant surfaces, microstructure, and physicochemical aspects. , 2012, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[6]  Paulo G Coelho,et al.  Classification of osseointegrated implant surfaces: materials, chemistry and topography. , 2010, Trends in biotechnology.

[7]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  XPS, AES and SEM analysis of recent dental implants. , 2009, Acta biomaterialia.

[8]  David M. Dohan Ehrenfest,et al.  Fractal patterns applied to implant surface: definitions and perspectives. , 2011 .

[9]  Massimo Del Fabbro,et al.  A multicenter prospective evaluation of 2-months loaded Osseotite implants placed in the posterior jaws: 3-year follow-up results. , 2002, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  C. Cassinelli,et al.  Effect of titanium implant surface nanoroughness and calcium phosphate low impregnation on bone cell activity in vitro. , 2010, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[11]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Which surface properties enhance bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, TiUnite, and Osseotite implant surfaces. , 2006, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[12]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  The roles of surface chemistry and topography in the strength and rate of osseointegration of titanium implants in bone. , 2009, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[13]  J. Shibli,et al.  In dental implant surfaces, NanoWar has begun… but NanoQuest is still at stake! , 2013 .

[14]  M. Monjo,et al.  In vivo expression of osteogenic markers and bone mineral density at the surface of fluoride-modified titanium implants. , 2008, Biomaterials.

[15]  J. Granjeiro,et al.  Basic research methods and current trends of dental implant surfaces. , 2009, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[16]  I. Abrahamsson,et al.  Deposition of nanometer scaled calcium-phosphate crystals to implants with a dual acid-etched surface does not improve early tissue integration. , 2013, Clinical oral implants research.

[17]  D. M. Dohan Ehrenfest.  Fractal patterns applied to implant surface: definitions and perspectives. , 2011, The Journal of oral implantology.