Purpose: This article reviews clinical knowledge of selected oral implant surfaces.
Materials and methods: The surfaces most commonly used in clinical practice, marketed by the five largest oral implant companies, are identified; their clinical documentation was scrutinized following a strict protocol. Experimental knowledge of the surfaces is briefly summarized. Retrospective, prospective, and comparative clinical studies were analyzed separately, as were studies of implants in conjunction with bone grafts.
Results: TiUnite anodized surfaces are clinically documented in 1- to 2-year follow-up studies at best, with failures at about 3%. Sandblasted and acid-etched SLA surfaces are documented with good clinical results for up to 3 years. Osseotite dual acid-etched implants are documented with good clinical results for up to 5 years. Frialit-2 sandblasted and etched implants are positively documented for about 3 years in one study only. The Tioblast implant is the only design documented for survival over 10 years of follow-up and success over 7 years of follow-up.
Conclusion: Generally, oral implants are introduced clinically without adequate clinical documentation. Implant companies initiate clinical documentation after product launch. The standards of clinical reporting have improved over the years. Proper long-term reports have been published for only one surface, Tioblast.