Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 14, 2026
06:36
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Turned, machined versus double-etched dental implants in vivo
B Al-Nawas1, U Hangen, H Duschner
1Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, J. Gutenberg University Hospital Mainz, Augustusplatz 2, D-55131 Mainz, Germany. al-nawas@mkg.klinik.uni-mainz.de
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
|May 31, 2007
Summary
This study found no significant clinical differences between turned and etched dental implant surfaces. However, implants with turned surfaces showed higher loss rates after bone augmentation procedures.
Area of Science:
- Dental Implantology
- Biomaterials Science
- Oral Surgery
Background:
- Moderately rough implant surfaces demonstrate positive clinical outcomes.
- Direct comparisons of clinical data between different implant surface designs are infrequent.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the clinical performance of two macroscopically similar dental implants: one with a turned, machined surface and another with an etched surface.
- Evaluate implant success rates and survival periods based on surface topography.
Main Methods:
- A retrospective cohort study involving 361 dental implants (210 turned, 151 etched), with a minimum of 12 months in situ.
- Clinical data, implant success, Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA), and Periotest values were assessed.
- Implant survival rates were correlated with surface design and osteoplastic procedures.
Main Results:
- No statistically significant differences were observed between turned and etched surfaces in RFA or Periotest measurements.
- Mean survival periods were comparable between the two groups (49 months for turned vs. 46 months for etched).
- A significantly higher rate of implant loss occurred in the turned implant group following osteoplastic procedures (17 vs. 1).
Conclusions:
- Dental implants with turned and etched minimally rough surfaces exhibit comparable clinical performance.
- While surface roughness may benefit outcomes in poor bone quality, definitive evidence remains limited.
- Further research is needed to fully elucidate the role of surface topography in compromised bone conditions.
