Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 19, 2026

Author Spotlight: Development of a Novel Finite Element Analysis Model for Improved Orthognathic Surgical Techniques
Published on: October 20, 2023
Comparison of early osseointegration of SLA® and SLActive® implants in maxillary sinus augmentation: a pilot study
Jamil Alayan1, Cedryck Vaquette2, Siamak Saifzadeh2
1School of Dentistry and Oral Health, Centre for Medicine and Oral Health, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Southport, Australia.
Objective:
To assess the impact of a hydrophilic implant surface (SLActive® ) placed into augmented maxillary sinuses on bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and surrounding tissue composition when compared to a hydrophobic surface (SLA® ).
Material And Methods:
Four sheep underwent bilateral sinus augmentation. Each sinus received anorganic bovine bone mineral + autogenous bone (ABBM + AB). Sixteen implants were subsequently placed 12 weeks postgrafting with each sinus receiving a control (SLA® ) and test implant (SLActive® ). Two animals were sacrificed at 2 weeks and another two animals were sacrificed at 4 weeks postimplantation. The eight sinuses and 16 implants were processed for histomorphometry, which assessed bone-to-implant contact (%BIC) and tissue elements (woven bone - WB, lamellar bone - LB, soft tissue - ST) in the interthread region of implants within the augmented sinus.
Results:
There was a statistically significant increase in %BIC at week 4 compared to the week 2 animals in both test (P < 0.005) and control (P < 0.005) groups. There was a statistically significant greater %BIC around test implants when compared to control implants in both week 2 (P < 0.05) and week 4 animals (P < 0.05). Greater %WB (11.17% ±6.82) and %LB (11.06% ±3.67) were seen in the test implants when compared to the control implants independent of time. This was only statistically significant for %LB (P < 0.05). A statistically significant reduction of 16.78% (±6.19) in %ST was noted in test implants when compared to control implants (P < 0.05) independent of time.
Conclusion:
Both time and the use of hydrophilic implant surface had a positive impact on %BIC around implants placed into augmented maxillary sinuses. Hydrophilic implant surfaces also had a positive impact on surrounding tissue composition. Larger trials are needed to better assess and detect differences between these two surfaces in augmented maxillary sinuses.
More Related Videos
05:54Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
08:41Calvarial Model of Bone Augmentation in Rabbit for Assessment of Bone Growth and Neovascularization in Bone Substitution Materials
Published on: August 13, 2019