Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 2, 2025
Surgical Bone Implantation Technique for Rat Tibia Models of Diabetes and Osteoporosis
Published on: July 5, 2024
Comparison of osseointegration in commercial SLA-treated dental implants with different surface roughness: a pilot
Dae-Sung Kim1, Won-Tak Cho2, Soon Chul Heo3
1Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Pusan National University Dental Hospital, Yangsan, Republic of Korea.
Purpose:
This pilot study investigated the effect of surface roughness on osseointegration by comparing two types of commercial SLA-treated dental implants with different surface roughness levels: moderately rough (Sa = 1 - 2 µm) and rough surfaces (Sa > 2 µm).
Materials And Methods:
Two implant groups were studied: TS (rough surface) and ADD (moderately rough surface) groups. Surface characteristics were analyzed using optical profilometry and SEM. In vitro studies using BRITER cells assessed cell adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation through CCK-8 assay and qRT-PCR for osteopontin (OPN), osteocalcin (OCN), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression. The in vivo study involved 12 implants (six per group) placed in mandibular defects of two beagle dogs. After 8 weeks, histomorphometric analysis evaluated bone to implant contact (BIC) and inter-thread bone density (ITBD). Statistical analysis used Student's t-test and two-way ANOVA for in vitro data, and Mann-Whitney U test for in vivo data.
Results:
Surface analysis revealed Sa values of 2.50 ± 0.27 µm for the TS group and 1.80 ± 0.06 µm for the ADD group. In vitro studies showed no significant differences in cell adhesion and proliferation between the groups (P > .05). However, gene expression patterns differed, with ADD group showing higher OPN expression (P < .001) and TS group showing higher ALP expression (P < .01). The in vivo study revealed no statistically significant differences in BIC and ITBD between the two groups (P > .05).
Conclusion:
Surface roughness influenced osteoblast differentiation in vitro, but did not significantly affect osseointegration outcomes in vivo. Both moderately rough and rough surfaces appeared to support comparable levels of osseointegration. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine optimal implant surface characteristics.
