JPID - Vol 09 - Issue 01

JPID Gallery > JPID - Vol 09 - Issue 01 > Article 3

FROM SURFACE ENGINEERING TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: INNOVATIONS IN IMPLANT SURFACE TREATMENT

*Shelly Sharma, **Mukesh Kumar Goyal, ***Shalini Chauhan, ****Rishita Pandey
*Post Graduate Student, **Professor and Head of the Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, ***Senior Lecturer, ****Post Graduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Inderprastha Dental College and Hospital. Corresponding author: Dr Mukesh Kumar Goyal. Email: dr.mukeshgoyal@gmail.com

Abstract:

The success of dental implants hinges on a multitude of factors, including both local and systemic conditions such as bone quality, systemic diseases, implant design, and notably, implant surface characteristics. Surface treatments play a pivotal role in enhancing osseointegration—the direct structural and functional connection between living bone and the implant surface. Traditional methods like acid etching, sandblasting, and plasma spraying have been extensively studied for their ability to modify surface roughness and topography, thereby improving cell adhesion and proliferation. Recent advancements have introduced bioactive coatings, such as collagen, bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), and hyaluronic acid, which further promote osteogenic differentiation and accelerate bone healing. Emerging technologies, including femtosecond and picosecond laser treatments, offer precise control over surface microstructures, enhancing antibacterial properties and osteointegration potential. Additive manufacturing techniques, like selective laser melting, allow for the creation of porous structures that mimic natural bone architecture, facilitating vascularization and cellular infiltration . However, challenges remain regarding the long-term stability and durability of these surface modifications, especially in patients with compromised bone quality or systemic conditions. Therefore, ongoing research is essential to optimize surface treatment strategies, ensuring enhanced implant performance and improved patient outcomes in dental implantology.

Key words: machining, acid etching, laser ablation, electropolishing, plasma spraying, anodization, electrophoretic deposition, biomimetic coating

Introduction

Dental implants have become a leading solution for partial and complete tooth loss, offering superior aesthetics, function, and long-term outcomes compared to traditional prosthetics. Titanium is the preferred implant material due to its strength, biocompatibility, and resistance to degradation. Factors such as implant design, surface topography, and bone quality influence this process.1 To enhance osseointegration, various surface modification techniques like sandblasting, acid etching, plasma spraying, and anodization are used to improve surface roughness and cellular response. Bioactive coatings (e.g., calcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite) and nanotechnology further boost bone regeneration by mimicking natural bone structure. Incorporating biological molecules like BMP-2 and collagen shows promise in enhancing integration, especially in complex cases. Despite high success rates, issues like bacterial colonization and peri implant bone loss persist, emphasizing the need for ongoing research into safer, more effective, and personalized implant solutions.2

Review of Current Literature

Implant surface treatments play a pivotal role in enhancing osseointegration and clinical success. To enhance osseointegration, various surface modifications are required. These surface modifications are generally classified into three major categories: subtractive methods, additive methods, and biochemical methods.[3] Each approach offers distinct mechanisms for improving implant-tissue interaction, and numerous studies have explored their effectiveness in promoting early healing, bone formation, and long-term stability.



Subtractive Method

Machining (Turning)
Machining was the first surface treatment used for dental implants, introduced in the 1970s by Brånemark. This process involves mechanical shaping through turning or milling, producing a smooth, polished surface with limited topographical features. Though appearing flat to the naked eye, SEM analysis reveals fine grooves with surface roughness values typically ranging from Sa 0.5–1.0 μm and Ra 0.8–1.2 μm. Due to this low roughness, machined surfaces offer limited bone interlocking and slower osseointegration.1

Acid etching
Acid etching is a widely used subtractive technique that enhances implant surface roughness by exposing titanium to strong acids such as HCl, H2SO4 , HNO3 , or HF. This process removes the oxide layer, revealing fresh, reactive titanium and creating micro-pits (0.5–2 μm) that promote protein adsorption, cell attachment, and osteoblast activity.4 The increased surface area and microroughness (Ra ~1.5 μm) improve bone-to-implant contact and osseointegration.

Dual acid etching (DAE)
It is a surface modification technique that involves treating titanium implants with a combination of strong acids. This process creates a micro-rough surface with submicron topography, enhancing surface area, protein adsorption, and osteoblast attachment.5 The resulting surface roughness (Ra ~1–2 μm) improves bone-to-implant contact and mechanical interlocking, accelerating osseointegration. DAE also alters surface chemistry, increasing biocompatibility and facilitating early bone healing. In some cases, fluoride ions retained on the surface provide added antibacterial and osteoconductive benefits. Compared to smoother or single-etched surfaces, DAE-treated implants demonstrate higher stability, faster integration, and improved clinical outcomes.6

Laser ablation (Laser peening)
Laser surface modification enhances dental implants by creating precise micro/nano textures using lasers like Nd:YAG, Er:YAG, CO2 , or femtosecond types. Techniques such as laser ablation improve roughness, wettability, biocompatibility, and bacterial resistance.7 Nanosecond lasers reduce heat damage, ensuring accuracy. On titanium, lasers form oxide layers; on zirconia, they enhance bonding. Products like Laser-Lok® use microchannels for better soft tissue integration. However, the method requires expertise and strict safety measures.8

SLA (Sandblasted, Large-grit, Acid etched)
The SLA surface is a widely used dental implant modification designed to enhance osseointegration, introduced by the Straumann Institute in 1997. The SLA process involves large-grit sandblasting—typically with Al2O3 , TiO2 , or HA—to create a macro-rough surface (20–40 μm craters), followed by acid etching with HCl and H2SO4 to form micro-pits (0.5–3 μm) and nanoscale features. This dual treatment increases surface area, surface energy, and promotes bone cell adhesion and proliferation. The resulting surface has a roughness (Ra) around 1.5 μm and a thickened oxide layer, enhancing protein adsorption, bone-implant contact (BIC), and osseoconductivity. Its isotropic texture and improved hydrophilicity support early implant loading and better clinical outcomes.9 In 2005, the SLActive surface—a chemically modified SLA with enhanced hydrophilicity— was introduced, offering faster and more reliable osseointegration.

Electropolishing
Electropolishing, also known as anodic polishing, is an electrochemical process used to smooth and passivate metal surfaces by selectively removing surface irregularities. Using a concentrated acid electrolyte (typically sulfuric and phosphoric acid), the process reduces roughness, enhances corrosion resistance, and improves biocompatibility. It also removes microburrs and contaminants, forming a clean, passive oxide layer ideal for medical and pharmaceutical applications.10

Additive Method

Plasma spraying
It is a thermal coating technique in which powdered materials are melted using a high temperature plasma jet and sprayed onto implant surfaces. This method allows precise control over coating thickness, porosity, and composition, enhancing implant performance and osseointegration. Titanium plasma spraying (TPS) creates a rough surface with micro-irregularities that increase surface area and improve mechanical interlocking with bone, aiding initial stability, especially in soft bone. Hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings, applied similarly, form a bioactive layer that promotes direct bone bonding and supports osteogenic cell attachment.11 While both coatings enhance osseointegration, concerns over titanium wear particles from earlier TPS surfaces have led to a shift toward safer, moderately rough surfaces.

Anodization
Anodization is an electrochemical process that enhances the surface of titanium dental implants by forming a controlled oxide layer. The titanium acts as the anode in an acidic electrolyte solution, typically containing sulfuric, phosphoric, and hydrofluoric acids, under voltages of 1–300 V and temperatures of 18–38°C. This process creates an oxide layer with varying thickness (1–10 μm) and roughness (Ra>2 μm), improving corrosion resistance, wear resistance, and early osseointegration. Anodized surfaces increase protein adsorption and cell attachment.12

Electrophoretic deposition (EPD)
EPD is an electrochemical technique used to apply uniform coatings on conductive implant surfaces by moving charged particles in a suspension under an electric field. It is commonly used to deposit bioactive materials like hydroxyapatite (HA), which enhances cell adhesion and osseointegration.13

Biomimetic coating
These coatings aim to replicate the natural extracellular matrix (ECM) of bone, promoting cellular activities essential for successful osseointegration. It has been shown that such biomimetic coatings are more soluble in physiological fluids and resorbable by osteoclastic cells such as dentin materials.[10]

Agents used:

  • Bioceramics
  • Hydroxyapatite(HA)
  • Calcium phosphate phases.
  • Bioactive proteins
  • Bone morphogenic proteins (BMP)
  • Type1collagen
  • RGD peptide sequence.
  • Fluoride.
  • Polymers
  • Chitosan



Biochemical Methods

Immobilization of growth factors
One effective approach to enhance osseointegration and promote bone regeneration around dental implants involves the surface immobilization of growth factors. These biological molecules, such as bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) and platelet-derived growth factors (PDGFs), play crucial roles in regulating cell proliferation, differentiation, and extracellular matrix synthesis.14 Various techniques such as physical adsorption, covalent attachment, and affinity-based methods—can be used to anchor growth factors onto implant surfaces.15 Once immobilized, these growth factors interact with specific cell surface receptors, triggering intracellular signalling pathways that support cellular activity and accelerate bone tissue formation.

Peptide Functionalization
To enhance the biological performance of implants, their surfaces can be modified with biomolecules. This involves the physical or chemical attachment of substances like proteins, peptides, or components of the extracellular matrix. Techniques such as self assembled monolayers, plasma polymerization, and layer-by-layer deposition allow precise control over biomolecule immobilization. These functionalization methods support specific cellular interactions, influencing cell adhesion, growth, differentiation, and matrix production, thereby accelerating healing and improving osseointegration.16

Protein Coating
Protein coatings on dental implants aim to replicate the natural extracellular matrix and provide a bioactive surface that enhances cell attachment and proliferation. Type I collagen, the most abundant protein in bone, is frequently used due to its osteoconductive properties and its ability to promote osteoblast attachment.17 When coated on the implant surface, it acts as a scaffold for new bone formation, supporting both osteogenic cell recruitment and matrix mineralization. Fibronectin and laminin, other key matrix proteins, play crucial roles in epithelial cell adhesion and connective tissue formation. These coatings also help establish a strong mucosal seal around transmucosal implants, which is vital for preventing bacterial ingress and peri-implantitis.18

Enzyme Immobilization
It is a biochemical surface treatment that involves binding biologically active enzymes to the implant surface to influence mineralization and tissue remodeling. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) is an osteogenic enzyme that plays a key role in the mineralization of bone matrix. By immobilizing ALP on the implant surface, calcium phosphate deposition is enhanced, promoting rapid formation of a mineralized layer at the implant bone interface.19 This contributes to stronger and faster osseointegration. Another enzyme, lysyl oxidase (LOX), catalyzes cross-linking in collagen fibers and strengthens connective tissue attachments, which is particularly beneficial in soft tissue integration. These enzymes are typically stabilized on the surface through chemical crosslinking or entrapment methods, ensuring sustained biological activity post-implantation.4

Antimicrobial Agent Incorporation
To reduce bacterial colonization and prevent peri-implantitis, antimicrobial agents are incorporated on implant surfaces. Common approaches include controlled-release antibiotic coatings (e.g., vancomycin, gentamicin), antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) that also aid healing, and silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) known for broad-spectrum, long-lasting effects. These agents can be applied through adsorption, chemical bonding, or embedded in coatings, providing localized infection control—especially beneficial for high-risk patients.20

Recent Advances in Implant Surface Treatment
Continuous advancements in dental implant surface engineering have led to the development of novel approaches aimed at improving the biological response, enhancing implant stability, reducing healing time, and minimizing complications.21 These techniques are increasingly moving beyond traditional methods to incorporate biologically active, smart, and patient-specific strategies. The following sections outline the most significant recent developments.



Nanoscale Surface Engineering

Nanotechnology has enabled the creation of implant surfaces with structures that closely resemble the nanoscale features of natural bone.22 By introducing nanostructures—such as nanopores, nanotubes, and nanorough surfaces—cellular activity is significantly enhanced. These surfaces support improved protein interaction, encourage osteoblast adhesion and proliferation, and promote early bone regeneration, thereby improving the quality and speed of osseointegration.23

Functional Bioactive Coatings
Recent strategies focus on applying biologically active molecules to the implant surface to elicit targeted cellular responses. These coatings transform the implant from a passive device into a biofunctional interface that actively supports healing and integration. These include:

  • Growth factors like bone morphogenetic proteins (e.g., BMP-2), which stimulate bone forming cells.24
  • Peptide sequences such as RGD, which mimic extracellular matrix proteins and aid in cell binding.25
  • Collagen layers that facilitate cell adhesion and tissue compatibility.
  • Antimicrobial coatings, including silver ions and antibacterial peptides, which help in preventing bacterial adhesion and infection.26

Laser-Assisted Surface Texturing
Laser surface modification is a precise and efficient method that uses focused laser energy to create detailed micro- and nano-topographies on implant surfaces. Different types of lasers (e.g., femtosecond, CO2 , nanosecond lasers) are used to create clean, uniform textures without physical contact or contamination.27 These modified surfaces show improved wettability, better cell attachment, and enhanced integration with both soft and hard tissues. Additionally, the textured patterns may help resist bacterial colonization and reduce the risk of peri-implantitis.28

Ultraviolet Photofunctionalization
It is a surface treatment technique used to enhance the hydrophilicity and biological activity of titanium dental implants. Over time, implant surfaces can accumulate hydrocarbon contaminants, making them hydrophobic and less receptive to cellular attachment. Exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, particularly UV-C, removes these organic residues and activates the titanium oxide layer, restoring surface energy and converting the implant to a superhydrophilic state.29 This improves protein adsorption, promotes osteoblast adhesion, and accelerates early osseointegration. The treatment is simple, safe, and non-invasive, typically performed shortly before implant placement to optimize tissue response and clinical outcomes.30

Responsive (Smart) Implant Surfaces
Smart implant surfaces are designed to respond to physiological conditions in real time. These surfaces can release therapeutic agents—such as antibiotics or anti-inflammatory compounds— when triggered by specific stimuli like changes in pH or the presence of inflammation.31 This targeted delivery approach supports local treatment at the implant site while minimizing systemic side effects, and enhances healing especially in compromised conditions.32

Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (PEO)
It is a technique that generates a porous and chemically active oxide layer on titanium implant surfaces. These oxide layers are often enriched with calcium and phosphorus to enhance bioactivity.33 PEO-treated surfaces improve osseointegration by supporting bone cell attachment and mineral deposition. Additionally, their porous architecture can serve as a reservoir for drug delivery or further surface functionalization.34

Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing

The integration of 3D printing in dental implantology has made it possible to design implants with complex, customized geometries tailored to individual patient anatomy. This technology allows precise control over macro and microstructural features during fabrication, including built-in porosity and surface texturing. As a result, these implants achieve better fit, mechanical stability, and tissue integration, making them especially useful for patients with challenging anatomical conditions.35

Clinical Case Insight and Surface Selection Workflow

The choice of implant surface treatment plays a critical role in clinical success and must be tailored to each patient’s biological and anatomical condition.12 Factors such as bone quality, systemic health, esthetic zone placement, and risk of infection significantly influence the selection of surface modifications. A practical workflow helps guide clinicians in choosing the most appropriate implant surface for predictable outcomes.

In the following table, a simplified clinical decision-making guide is presented to help clinicians align patient profiles with surface treatments, considering both clinical and biological demands.36,37,38,39,40,41,42 clinical implications.



Discussion

Surface modifications of dental implants are a cornerstone of modern implantology, aiming to enhance osseointegration by modulating the implant–bone interface at microscopic and nanoscopic levels. The primary goal of these treatments is to stimulate early cellular responses and promote robust bone formation around the implant, particularly during the critical healing period.

Conventional techniques such as acid etching and sandblasting create a micro-rough surface, which increases the surface area and facilitates mechanical interlocking. These methods also improve protein adsorption and osteoblast attachment, leading to a stronger bone-to implant contact (BIC) and enhanced stability during early healing phases43,44. Sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) surfaces and their hydrophilic variants like SLActive have been widely adopted for their ability to reduce healing time and support immediate loading protocols9,36.

Plasma-sprayed coatings, notably those using titanium plasma spray (TPS) and hydroxyapatite (HA), are additive methods that increase implant surface area and bioactivity. These coatings aim to mimic the mineral component of bone and serve as a scaffold for osteoblasts. However, challenges such as delamination, variable thickness, and long-term mechanical stability persist, especially under functional load over time11,44.

Recent innovations have turned attention toward nanostructured and bioactive surfaces. These surfaces can be engineered to include growth factors, peptide sequences (e.g., RGD), type I collagen, and even extracellular matrix proteins like fibronectin or laminin15,17,25. Such functionalization mimics the natural bone environment, accelerating osteogenic differentiation, improving tissue integration, and significantly enhancing the potential for early implant loading. These strategies not only promote osseointegration but also support soft tissue healing and mucosal sealing, thereby reducing the risk of peri-implantitis16,18.

Further, laser-assisted surface modification techniques using femtosecond or nanosecond lasers allow precise control over implant topography without introducing contaminants. These methods improve wettability, promote early cell attachment, and exhibit promising antibacterial properties. Products like Laser Lok® utilize microchannels for better soft tissue integration, contributing to long-term implant success27,28.

Zirconia implants have emerged as a valuable alternative to titanium due to their superior esthetics and biocompatibility, especially in the anterior maxilla. However, their relatively lower fracture toughness and limited osseointegration capacity—owing to their bioinert surface— necessitate further optimization of surface treatments such as laser texturing, UV photofunctionalization, and bioactive coatings46,48. Although short-term studies show promising outcomes, the long-term clinical data on zirconia implants remain limited.

Another area of concern is the lack of standardized protocols for surface modifications. With the variety of methods—ranging from subtractive approaches like sandblasting to biochemical coatings with proteins or antimicrobial agents— there is often variability in clinical outcomes, particularly when treating compromised patients (e.g., those with diabetes, osteoporosis, or poor bone quality)47,49. This inconsistency underscores the importance of personalized, case-specific treatment strategies that consider the patient’s systemic health, bone density, and esthetic requirements.

Moreover, smart surfaces, capable of drug release in response to inflammation or pH changes, and PEO-treated surfaces enriched with calcium and phosphate ions, are paving the way for implants that can respond dynamically to biological conditions. When integrated with 3D printing, clinicians can create implants tailored to individual anatomical and biological profiles, further enhancing clinical outcomes in complex cases31,32,35.

While traditional methods continue to play an important role, the integration of biomimetic design, nanotechnology, and biochemical functionalization is reshaping the future of implantology. The challenge remains to validate these techniques through long-term clinical trials and to develop consensus-driven guidelines for consistent, safe, and effective application across diverse patient populations.

Conclusion

Implant surface treatment is a critical determinant of successful osseointegration and long-term implant stability. Techniques such as sandblasting, acid etching, anodization, plasma spraying, and bioactive coatings have proven effective in enhancing surface roughness, wettability, and biological response.48 Advanced modifications, including nano-structuring and incorporation of bioactive agents like BMP 2, hydroxyapatite, and collagen, have shown significant improvements in bone-to-implant contact and early integration.49 Emerging interest in zirconia implants also highlights the role of material-specific surface treatments in expanding clinical applications.50 However, standardization of protocols and long-term clinical validation remain necessary.

Overall, innovations in surface modification continue to improve implant outcomes, offering better integration and durability—especially crucial in complex or compromised clinical conditions.

References

  1. Smeets R, Stadlinger B, Schwarz F, Beck-Broichsitter B, Jung O, Precht C, et al. Impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration. Biomed Res Int. 2016 Jul 11;2016:6285620.
  2. Al Shayeb MA, Elfadil S, Abutayyem H, Shqaidef A, Marrapodi MM, Cicciù M, et al. Bioactive surface modifications on dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of osseointegration and longevity. Clin Oral Investig. 2024 Oct 11;28(11):592.
  3. Sreeharsha TV, Sharan S, Brunda K, Chandra KP, Badola I, Jabeen SN. Implant surface modifications: A review. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2020;6(3):334–338.
  4. Dua B, Gupta RK, Bhargava A, Mittal N. Advancements in surface treatment techniques for dental implants: Enhancing osseointegration and clinical outcomes. J Chem Health Risks. 2024;14(2):1927–41.
  5. Giner L, Mercadé M, Torrent S, Punset M, Pérez RA, Delgado LM, et al. Double acid etching treatment of dental implants for enhanced biological properties. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2018 Apr;16(2):83–89.
  6. Inchingolo AM, Malcangi G, Ferrante L, Del Vecchio G, Viapiano F, Inchingolo AD, et al. Surface coatings of dental implants: a review. J Funct Biomater. 2023 May 22;14(5):287.
  7. Fenelon T, Bakr MM, Walsh LJ, George R. Effects of lasers and their delivery characteristics on machined and micro roughened titanium dental implant surfaces. Bioengineering (Basel). 2020;7(3):93.
  8. Saghiri MA, Asatourian A, Sheibani N. A review of the effects of laser parameters on cell behavior in vitro: implications for laser applications in dentistry. J Biomed Opt. 2010;15(2):021303.
  9. Boyan BD, Lotz EM, Schwartz Z. Roughness and hydrophilicity as osteogenic biomimetic surface properties. Tissue Eng Part A. 2017 Dec;23(23-24):1479-89.
  10. Raghavan R, Shajahan PA, Ravindran A, Purushothaman P. Surface treatments of implant: A review. Int J Sci Healthc Res. 2020;5(1):128–31.
  11. Aebli N, Krebs J, Stich H, Schawalder P, Walton M, Schwenke D, et al. In vivo comparison of the osseointegration of vacuum plasma sprayed titanium- and hydroxyapatite-coated implants. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003 Aug 1;66(2):356-63.
  12. Rahimi SN, Tengku Mohd Ariff TF, Kamar Affendi NH, Ahmad R. Surface modifications of dental implant and its clinical performance: A review. Compend Oral Sci. 2022;9(1):52–66.
  13. Batool S, Wadood A, Husain S, Hussain M, Yasir M, Ur Rehman MA. A brief insight to the electrophoretic deposition of PEEK-, chitosan-, gelatin-, and zein-based composite coatings for biomedical applications: recent developments and challenges. Surfaces. 2021;4:10.3390/surfaces4010001.
  14. Gittens RA, McLachlan T, Olivares-Navarrete R, Cai Y, Berner S, Tannenbaum R, et al. The effects of combined micron-/ submicron-scale surface roughness and nanoscale features on cell proliferation and differentiation. Biomaterials. 2011 May;32(13):3395-403.
  15. Anitua EA. Enhancement of osseointegration by generating a dynamic implant surface. J Oral Implantol. 2006;32(2):72–6.
  16. Romanos GE, Delgado-Ruiz RA, Sculean A. Surface functionalization techniques for modifying dental implant materials. J Dent Res. 2017 Feb;96(2):145–52.
  17. Terheyden H, Lang NP, Bierbaum S, Stadlinger B. Osseointegration—communication of cells. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Oct;23(10):1127–35.
  18. Hormia M, Owaribe K, Virtanen I. The dento-epithelial junction: cell adhesion by type I hemidesmosomes in the absence of a true basal lamina. J Periodontol. 2001 May;72(5):788–97.
  19. Piattelli A, Scarano A, Corigliano M, Piattelli M. Effects of alkaline phosphatase on bone healing around plasma-sprayed titanium implants: a pilot study in rabbits. Biomaterials. 1996 Jul;17(14):1443-9.
  20. Jemat A, Ghazali MJ, Razali M, Otsuka Y. Surface modifications and their effects on titanium dental implants. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:791725.
  21. Accioni F, Vázquez J, Merinero M, Begines B, Alcudia A. Latest trends in surface modification for dental implantology: Innovative developments and analytical applications. Pharmaceutics. 2022 Feb;14(2):455.
  22. Tomsia AP, Lee JS, Wegst UG, Saiz E. Nanotechnology for dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Nov Dec;28(6):e535-46.
  23. Popat KC, Daniels RH, Dubrow RS, Hardev V, Desai TA. Nanostructured surfaces for bone biotemplating applications. J Orthop Res. 2006 Apr;24(4):619-27.
  24. Carreira C, Lojudice FH, Halcsik E, Navarro RD, Sogayar MC, Granjeiro JM. Bone morphogenetic proteins: facts, challenges, and future perspectives. J Dent Res. 2014 Apr;93(4):335–45.
  25. von Wilmowsky C, Moest T, Nkenke E, Stelzle F, Schlegel KA. Implants in bone: part I. A current overview about tissue response, surface modifications and future perspectives. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Sep;18(3):243–57.
  26. 26. Chen L, Song X, Xing F, Wang Y, Wang Y, He Z, et al. A review on antimicrobial coatings for biomaterial implants and medical devices. J Biomed Nanotechnol. 2020 Jun;16(6):789-809.
  27. Sypniewska J, Szkodo M. Influence of laser modification on the surface character of biomaterials: Titanium and its alloys—a review. Coatings. 2022;12(9):1371.
  28. Nevins M, Camelo M, De Paoli S, Friedland B, Schenk RK, Parma-Benfenati S. Histologic evidence of a connective tissue attachment to laser microgrooved abutments: a canine study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010 Jun;30(3):245–55.
  29. Minamikawa H, Ikeda T, Att W, Yamada M, Ueno T, Saruwatari L, et al. Photofunctionalization increases the bioactivity and osteoconductivity of the titanium alloy Ti6Al4V. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014 Oct;102(10):3618–30.
  30. Hirota M, Ikeda T, Tabuchi M, Ozawa T, Tohnai I, Ogawa T. Effects of ultraviolet photofunctionalization on bone augmentation and integration capabilities of titanium mesh and implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Jan-Feb;32(1):52-62.
  31. Kimna C, Winkeljann B, Song J, Lieleg O. Smart biopolymer based multi-layers enable consecutive drug release events on demand. Adv Mater Interfaces. 2020 Oct;7(19):2000735.
  32. Zhang L, Li Y, Li X, Yu L, Wang Y. Smart bacteria-responsive drug delivery systems in medical implants. Bioengineering. 2022 Apr;13(4):173.
  33. Mashtalyar D, Nadaraia K, Gnedenkov A, Imshinetskiy I, Nadaraia M, Pleshkova A, et al. Bioactive coatings formed on titanium by plasma electrolytic oxidation: composition and properties. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(18):4163.
  34. Cardoso GC, Grandini CR, Rau JV. Comprehensive review of PEO coatings on titanium alloys for biomedical applications. J Mater Res Technol. 2024 Mar-Apr;25:311–28.
  35. Zhang F, Liu Y, Wang X, Li Z, Zheng Y, Liang Y, et al. 3D printed zirconia dental implants with integrated directional surface pores combine mechanical strength with favorable osteoblast response. Acta Biomater. 2022 Dec;150:427–41.
  36. Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Higginbottom FL, Hermann JS, Makins SR, Buser D. Bone response to unloaded and loaded titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a histometric study in the canine mandible. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998 Jan;40(1):1–11.
  37. Cochran DL, Oates TW, Morton D, Jones AA, Buser D, Peters F. A 5-year prospective multicenter study of early loaded titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Nov-Dec;26(6):1324–30.
  38. Hao CP, Liu R, Zhang W, Li J, Zeng J. The osseointegration and stability of dental implants with different surface treatments in animal models: A network meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 25;11(1):13849.
  39. Huang Y, Wang F, Chen Y, Li J, Sun Z, Liu C. Improvement in osseointegration of titanium dental implants after exposure to ultraviolet-C light for varied durations: An experimental study in beagle dogs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Aug;80(8):1389–97.
  40. Cunha W, Salmeron S, Gil JN, Esteves JC. Surface modification of zirconia dental implants by laser texturing. Lasers Med Sci. 2022 Jan;37(1):77–93.
  41. Jin HW, Noumbissi S, Wiedemann TG. Comparison of zirconia implant surface modifications for optimal osseointegration. J Funct Biomater. 2024 Apr;15(4):91.
  42. Teulé-Trull M, Donado-Rodríguez M, Cahuana-Bartra E. Antibacterial coatings for dental implants: A systematic review. Dent Mater. 2025 Mar;41(3):229–47.
  43. Papynov EK, Vasilyev LV, Gagarin D, Topalov F, Medvedev Y. Surface modifications of dental implants: a review. J Funct Biomater. 2023 May;14(5):287.
  44. Demnati I, Chaib A, Abboudi S. Plasma-sprayed apatite coatings: review of physical-chemical characteristics and their biological consequences. J Med Biol Eng. 2014 Mar;34(1):1–7.
  45. Souza JCM, Sordi MB, Kanazawa M, Ravindran S, Henriques B, Silva FS, et al. Nano-scale modification of titanium implant surfaces to enhance osseointegration. Acta Biomater. 2019 Jul;94:112–31.
  46. Sun L, Hong G. Surface modifications for zirconia dental implants: A review. Front Dent Med. 2021 Sep;2:733242.
  47. 47. Elbanna A, Bissa M, Sultan Z, Shahab S, Asiri F, Zafar M. Surface modification techniques of dental implants. IntechOpen. 2020;49–68.
  48. Yeo IS. Reality of dental implant surface modification: a short literature review. Open Biomed Eng J. 2014 Jul 11;8:114–9.
  49. Jimbo R, Coelho PG, Bryington M, Baldassarri M, Tovar N, Currie F, et al. Nano hydroxyapatite-coated implants improve bone nanomechanical properties. J Dent Res. 2012 Dec;91(12):1172–7.
  50. Kunrath MF, Gupta S, Lorusso F, Scarano A, Noumbissi S. Oral tissue interactions and cellular response to zirconia implant prosthetic components: A critical review. Materials (Basel). 2021 May 25;14(11):2825.
Download Article in PDF

JPID – The journal of Prosthetic and Implant Dentistry / Volume 9 Issue 1 / Sept–Dec 2025

Copyright © 2017-26 Indian Prosthodontic Society Kerala State Branch | IPSKERALA.COM | Powered by Dentaura.Com