Articles
Vol. 18 No. 3 (2026)
https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2026.756

Microscopic Analysis of Surface Microtopographic Characteristics of Different Dental Implants

Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Published: 24 September 2026
5
Views
20
Downloads
Topography, Surface, Contact osteogenesis, Surface treatment, Titanium

Authors

Julieta Duer
Graduate School, Catholic University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
Maria Constanza Ibanez
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6857-4818
Professor of the Career of Specialization in Oral Implantology, Graduate School, Catholic University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
Mario Sezin
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1744-2668
Professor of the Career of Specialization in Oral Implantology, Graduate School, Catholic University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
Juan Carlos Ibanez
dribanez@ibaimplantes.com
Director of the Career of Specialization in Oral Implantology, Graduate School, Catholic University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.

Objective To compare the microtopographic surface characteristics of dental implants with different surface treatments using optical and scanning electron microscopy.

Materials and Methods Five implant groups (n = 5) were analyzed: Group 1 – NeoKings NK3, Group 2 – SIN Epikut, Group 3 – B&W SG, Group 4 – Straumann BLT, and Group 5 – Neodent GM Helix. Surface morphology was examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Pore diameter and number were quantified using Image Pro-Plus software, while arithmetic surface roughness (Ra) was measured with a confocal laser scanning microscope. Data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis and two-tailed tests, with a significance level of p < 0.05 (IBM-SPSS Statistics v.20).

Results Mean pore diameters (µm) were: Group 5 (1.64 ± 1.40), Group 3 (1.51 ± 1.04), Group 1 (1.32 ± 0.64), Group 2 (1.13 ± 0.64), and Group 4 (1.04 ± 0.87). Statistically significant differences were found among the groups (p < 0.05). Pore density (pores/mm²) was: Group 4 (278,280 ± 45,814), Group 5 (159,129 ± 20,270), Group 2 (76,399 ± 13,405), Group 1 (55,330 ± 9,855), and Group 3 (54,271 ± 14,360). Significant differences were also observed between groups (p < 0.05). Mean arithmetic roughness (Ra, µm): Group 5 (1.32 ± 0.25), Group 4 (0.91 ± 0.13), Group 3 (0.87 ± 0.14), Group 1 (0.81 ± 0.08), and Group 2 (0.69 ± 0.09).

Conclusions Straumann implants exhibited the smallest pore diameters and the highest pore density, suggesting a greater active surface area. Neodent implants presented the highest roughness values. These microstructural variations are clinically relevant, as they directly influence cell adhesion, osteoblastic migration, and ultimately the osseointegration process. Such topographic parameters should therefore be carefully considered when selecting dental implants.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

1. Trisi P, Lazzara R, Rebaudi A, Rao W, Testori T, Porter SS. Bone implant contact on machined and dual acid-etched surfaces after 2 months of healing in the human maxilla. Journal of Periodontology. 2003;74(7):945–956. doi: 10.1902/jop.2003.74.7.945.
2. le Guéhennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent. Mater. 2007; 23:844–854. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.025.
3. Choi MJ, Min BK, Hong MH, Lee HJ, Son JS, Kwon TY. Influence of oxidative etching solution temperatures on the surface roughness and wettability of a titanium alloy. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2019; 19:1044–1047. doi: 10.1166/jnn.2019.15901.
4. Lee JWY, Bance ML. Physiology of Osseointegration. Otolaryngol. Clin. N. Am. 2019; 52:231–242. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2018.11.004.
5. Elias CN, Oshida Y, Lima JHC, Muller CA. Relationship between surface properties (roughness, wettability and morphology) of titanium and dental implant removal torque. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2008; 1:234–242. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2007.12.002.
6. Gupta R, Gupta N, Weber KK. Dental Implants StatPearls 2021. [(accessed on 13 April 2022)]. Available online: https://europepmc.org/article/nbk/nbk470448.
7. Dohan Ehrenfest DM, Coelho PG, Kang BS, Sul YT, Albrektsson T. Classification of osseointegrated implant surfaces: materials, chemistry and topography. Trends in Biotechnology. 2010;28(4):198–206. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2009.12.003.
8. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. The Impact of Oral Implants-Past and Future, 1966–2042. J. Can. Dent. Assoc. 2005; 71:327.
9. Sykaras N, Iacopino AM, Marker VA, Triplett RG, Woody RD. Implant materials, designs, and surface topographies: Their effect on osseointegration. A literature review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2000; 15:675–690.
10. Beutner R, Michael J, Schwenzer B, Scharnweber D. Biological nano-functionalization of titanium-based biomaterial surfaces: a flexible toolbox. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 2010;7(1): S93–S105. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2009.0418.focus.
11. Lutz R, Srour S, Nonhoff J, Weisel T, Damien CJ, Schlegel KA. Biofunctionalization of titanium implants with a biomimetic active peptide (P-15) promotes early osseointegration. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2010;21(7):726–734. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01904.x.
12. Von Wilmowsky C, Moest T, Nkenke E, Stelzle F, Schlegel A. Implants in bone: Part, I. A current overview about tissue response, surface modifications and future perspectives. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014; 18:243–257. doi: 10.1007/s10006-013-0398-1.
13. Elinor ZN, Svetlana L, Alex L, Barbara K, Alexander S. The study of hydroxyapatite growth kinetics on CP-Ti and TI65Zr treated by plasma electrolytic oxidation process. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023; 24:2169–2186.
14. Kim IH, Im JS, Lee MH, Min BK, Son JS, Hong MH, Kwon TY. Formation of nano/micro hierarchical structures on titanium alloy surface by a novel etching solution. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2020; 20:4529–4532. doi: 10.1166/jnn.2020.17575.
15. Cruz MB, Silva N, Marques JF, Mata A, Silva FS, Caramês J. Biomimetic implant surfaces and their role in biological integration-A concise review. Biomimetics (Basel). 2022 Jun 6;7(2):74. doi: 10.3390/biomimetics7020074.
16. Hotchkiss KM, Sowers KT, Olivares-Navarrete R. Novel in vitro comparative model of osteogenic and inflammatory cell response to dental implants. Dent. Mater. 2019; 35:176–184. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.011.
17. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2009; 20:172–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01775.x.
18. Gittens RA, Olivares-Navarrete R, Cheng A, Anderson DM, McLachlan T, Stephan I, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Sandhage KH, Fedorov AG, Rupp F, et al. The roles of titanium surface micro/nanotopography and wettability on the differential response of human osteoblast lineage cells. Acta. Biomater. 2013; 9:6268–6277. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.12.002.
19. Puckett SD, Taylor E, Raimondo T, Webster TJ. The relationship between the nanostructure of titanium surfaces and bacterial attachment. Biomaterials. 2010; 31:706–713. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.081.
20. Schliephake H, Aref A, Scharnweber D, Bierbaum S, Sewing A. Effect of modifications of dual acid-etched implant surfaces on peri-implant bone formation. Part I: Organic coatings. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 2009; 20:31–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01603.x.
21. Novaes Jr AB, de Souza SLS, de Barros RRM, Pereira KKY, Iezzi G, Piattelli A. Influence of implant surfaces on osseointegration. Braz. Dent. J. 2010; 21:471–481. doi: 10.1590/S0103-64402010000600001.
22. Liang J, Xu S, Shen M, Cheng B, Li Y, Liu X, Qin D, Bellare A, Kong L. Osteogenic activity of titanium surfaces with hierarchical micro-/nano-structures obtained by hydrofluoric acid treatment. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017; 2017:1317–1328. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S123930.
23. Zhu M, Zhang R, Mao Z, Fang J, Ren F. Topographical biointerface regulating cellular functions for bone tissue engineering. Biosurface Biotribology. 2022; 8:165–187. doi: 10.1049/bsb2.12043.
24. Zhang J, Xie Y, Zuo J, Li J, Wei Q, Yu Z, Tang Z. Cell responses to titanium treated by a sandblast-free method for implant applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2017; 78:1187–1194. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2017.04.119.
25. Kopf BS, Ruch S, Berner S, Spencer ND, Maniura-Weber K. The role of nanostructures and hydrophilicity in osseointegration: in vitro protein-adsorption and blood-interaction studies. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2015;103(8):2661–72. 10.1002/jbm.a.35401.
26. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20(s4), 172–184. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01775.x.
27. Gittens RA, Olivares-Navarrete R, Schwartz Z, Boyan BD. Implant osseointegration and the role of microroughness and nanostructures: lessons for spine implants. Acta Biomater. 2024;10 (8), 3363–3371. 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.03.037.
28. Kolarovszki B, Ficsor S, Frank D, Katona K, Soos B, Turzo K. Unlocking the Potential: Laser Surface Modifications for Titanium Dental Implants. Lasers Med. Sci. 2024; 39:162. doi: 10.1007/s10103-024-04076-1.
29. Khoo LK, Sakdajeyont W, Khanijou M, Seriwatanachai D, Kiattavorncharoen S, Pairuchvej V, Wongsirichat N. Titanium Fixture Implants Treated by Laser in Dentistry: Review Article. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. Med. Pathol. 2019; 31:381–385. doi: 10.1016/j.ajoms.2019.08.001.
30. Cervino G, Meto A, Fiorillo L, Odorici A, Meto A, D’Amico C, Oteri G, Cicciù M. Surface Treatment of the Dental Implant with Hyaluronic Acid: An Overview of Recent Data. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4670.
31. 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, 18, 243–257.
32. Illing B, Mohammadnejad L, Theurer A, Schultheiss J, Kimmerle-Mueller E, Rupp F, Krajewski S. Biological performance of titanium surfaces with different hydrophilic and nanotopographical features. Materials (Basel). 2023 Nov 24;16(23):7307. doi: 10.3390/ma16237307.
33. Shevtsov M, Pitkin E, Combs SE, Meulen G, Preucil C, Pitkin M. Comparison In Vitro Study on the Interface between Skin and Bone Cell Cultures and Microporous Titanium Samples Manufactured with 3D Printing Technology Versus Sintered Samples. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2024 Sep 12;14(18):1484. doi: 10.3390/nano14181484.
34. Stanford CM. Surface modification of biomedical and dental implants and the processes of inflammation, wound healing and bone formation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010; 11:354–369. doi: 10.3390/ijms11010354.
35. Almas K, Smith S, Kutkut A. What is the best micro and macro dental implant topography? Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2019; 63:447–460. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2019.02.010.
36. Kaluđerović MR, Schreckenbach JP, Graf HL. Titanium dental implant surfaces obtained by anodic spark deposition - From the past to the future. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016 Dec 1; 69:1429-41. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.07.068.
37. Sul Y-T, Byon E, Wennerberg A. Surface characteristics of electrochemically oxidized implants and acid-etched implants: surface chemistry, morphology, pore configurations, oxide thickness, crystal structure, and roughness. Int J Maxillofac Implants. 2008 Jul-Aug;23(4):631-40.
38. Yang W, E, Huang HH. TiO2 Nanonetwork on Rough Ti Enhanced Osteogenesis In Vitro and In Vivo. Dent Res. 2021 Sep;100(10):1186-1193. doi: 10.1177/00220345211001017.
39. Hanawa T. Zirconia versus titanium in dentistry: A review. Mater J. 2020 Jan 31;39(1):24-36. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2019-172
40. Sezin M, Crohare L, Ibañez JC. Microscopic Study of Surface Microtopographic Characteristics of Dental Implants. Open Dent J. 2016 Apr 30; 10:139–147. doi: 10.2174/1874210601610010139.
41. Zhang J, Chen P, Hu F, Chen C, Song L. Porous structure design and properties of dental implants. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2024 May;27(6):717-726. doi: 10.1080/10255842.2023.2199901.
42. Rupp F, Liang L, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Scheideler L, Hüttig F. Surface characteristics of dental implants: A review. Dent Mater. 2018 Jan;34(1):40-57. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.007.
43. Rosa MB, Albrektsson T, Francischone CE, Schwartz Filho HO, Wennerberg A. The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness pattern. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012 Sep-Oct;20(5):550-5. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572012000500010.
44. Stich T, Alagboso F, KreneK T, Kovárík T, Alt V, Docheva D. Implant‐bone‐interface: Reviewing the impact of titanium surface modifications on osteogenic processes in vitro and in vivo. Bioeng Transl Med. 2021 Jul 12;7(1):e10239. doi: 10.1002/btm2.10239.
45. Coelho PG, Granato R, Marin C, Teixeira HS. The effect of different implant macrogeometries and surface treatment in early biomechanical fixation: an experimental study in dogs. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2011;4(8):1974–1981. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.06.016.
46. Smeets R, Stadlinger B, Schwarz F, Beck-Broichsitter B, Jung O, Precht C, Kloss F, Grobe A, Heiland M, Edker T. Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration. Biomed Res Int. 2016 jul 11:2016: 6285620.doi: 10.1155/2016/6285620.
47. Ogle O. Implant surface material, design, and osseointegration. Dent Clin North Am. 2015 Apr;59(2): 505-20.doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2014.12.003.
48. Romero-Serrano M, Romero-Ruiz MM, Herrero-Climent M, Rios-Carrasco B, Gil-Mur J. Correlation between Implant Surface Roughness and Implant Stability: A Systematic Review. Dent J (Basel). 2024 Aug 23;12(9):276. doi: 10.3390/dj12090276.
49. Sarvaiya BB, Kumar S, Pathan MSH, Patel S, Gupta V, Haque M. The Impact of Implant Surface Modifications on the Osseointegration Process: An Overview. Cureus. 2025 Apr 1;17(4): e81576. doi: 10.7759/cureus.81576.
50. Matos GR. Surface roughness of dental implant and osseointegration. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2021; 20:1–4. doi: 10.1007/s12663-020-01437-5.
51. Li X, Wang L, Fan Y, Feng Q, Cui FZ, Watari F. Nanostructured scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013; 101:2424–2435. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.34539.
52. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. On osseointegration in relation to implant surfaces. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Mar;21 Suppl 1:4-7. doi: 10.1111/cid.12742.
53. Komatsu K, Matsuura T, Cheng J, Kido D, Park W, Ogawa T. Nanofeatured surfaces in dental implants: contemporary insights and impending challenges. Int J Implant Dent. 2024 Jul 4;10(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s40729-024-00550-1.

How to Cite



Microscopic Analysis of Surface Microtopographic Characteristics of Different Dental Implants. (2026). Journal of Osseointegration, 18(3), 95-101. https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2026.756
Copyright (c) 2026 Julieta Duer, Maria Constanza Ibanez, Mario Sezin, Juan Carlos Ibanez Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.