The effects of superficial roughness and design on the primary stability of dental implants
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 20, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Mychelle Vianna Dos Santos1, Carlos Nelson Elias, Jose Henrique Cavalcanti Lima
1Biomaterials Laboratory, Instituto Militar de Engenharia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Background:
Primary implant stability has been used as an indicator for future osseointegration and whether an immediate/early loading protocol should be applied. Implant stability is the key to clinical success.
Purpose:
The aim of this work was to analyze the influence of the design and surface morphology on the primary stability of dental implants. The insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) were the parameters used to measure the primary stability of the implants.
Materials And Methods:
Thirty implants, divided in six groups of five samples were placed in cylinder of high molecular weight polyethylene. The groups were different upon two designs (cylindrical and conic) and three implant surfaces finishing (machined, acid etched, and anodized). The insertion torque was quantified by a digital torque driver (Lutron Electronic Enterprise Co., Taipei, Taiwan) and the resonance frequency was measured by Osstell mentor™ (Integration Diagnostics AB, Göteborg, Sweden). The implant surface morphology was characterized by scanning electron microscopy, roughness measurement, and friction coefficient.
Results:
The machined implants showed smaller insertion torques than treated implant surfaces. There were no differences between the RFA measurements in all tested surfaces. Statistical analyses demonstrated no correlation between the dental implant insertion torque and primary stability measured by the RFA. The implants with treated surfaces showed greater roughness, a higher friction coefficient, and demanded a larger insertion torque than machined implants. The results of the surface roughness and friction coefficients are in accordance with the results of the insertion torque. The difference, across the insertion torque values, between conical and cylindrical implants, can be explained by the different contact surface area among the thread geometry of these implants.
Conclusion:
The maximum implant insertion torque depends on the implant geometry, thread form, and implant surface morphology. The placement of conical implants with treated surfaces required the highest insertion torque. There was no correlation between RFA and insertion torque implant.
