{"title":"骨整合——种植体表面的影响。","authors":"Saso Ivanovski","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The modification of implant surfaces from the original machined to 'micro-rough', and more recently 'bioactive', surfaces has been proposed to improve clinical outcomes. This review outlines the evidence for the superior performance of modified implant surfaces. Pre-clinical trials consistently show that modified implant surfaces are more osteogenic and improve the degree of osseointegration. Clinically, there is a clear trend for improved clinical success with 'micro-rough' compared with machined implants. This is particularly the case in compromised sites, such as the posterior maxilla, and compromised patients, such as smokers. Furthermore, 'micro-rough' implant surfaces perform better in augmented sites, and facilitate the more predictable use of short implants, thus reducing the need for more invasive augmentation procedures. 'Micro-rough' implants have been associated with an increased susceptibility to peri-implantitis, but these findings relate to a surface that is no longer manufactured. Newly developed 'bioactive' surfaces have only been evaluated in a limited number of clinical studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":75517,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons","volume":"20 ","pages":"82-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Osseointegration--the influence of implant surface.\",\"authors\":\"Saso Ivanovski\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The modification of implant surfaces from the original machined to 'micro-rough', and more recently 'bioactive', surfaces has been proposed to improve clinical outcomes. This review outlines the evidence for the superior performance of modified implant surfaces. Pre-clinical trials consistently show that modified implant surfaces are more osteogenic and improve the degree of osseointegration. Clinically, there is a clear trend for improved clinical success with 'micro-rough' compared with machined implants. This is particularly the case in compromised sites, such as the posterior maxilla, and compromised patients, such as smokers. Furthermore, 'micro-rough' implant surfaces perform better in augmented sites, and facilitate the more predictable use of short implants, thus reducing the need for more invasive augmentation procedures. 'Micro-rough' implants have been associated with an increased susceptibility to peri-implantitis, but these findings relate to a surface that is no longer manufactured. Newly developed 'bioactive' surfaces have only been evaluated in a limited number of clinical studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"82-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Osseointegration--the influence of implant surface.
The modification of implant surfaces from the original machined to 'micro-rough', and more recently 'bioactive', surfaces has been proposed to improve clinical outcomes. This review outlines the evidence for the superior performance of modified implant surfaces. Pre-clinical trials consistently show that modified implant surfaces are more osteogenic and improve the degree of osseointegration. Clinically, there is a clear trend for improved clinical success with 'micro-rough' compared with machined implants. This is particularly the case in compromised sites, such as the posterior maxilla, and compromised patients, such as smokers. Furthermore, 'micro-rough' implant surfaces perform better in augmented sites, and facilitate the more predictable use of short implants, thus reducing the need for more invasive augmentation procedures. 'Micro-rough' implants have been associated with an increased susceptibility to peri-implantitis, but these findings relate to a surface that is no longer manufactured. Newly developed 'bioactive' surfaces have only been evaluated in a limited number of clinical studies.