248 SURFACE MICROSTRUCTURE
Surface Microstructure of Dental
Implants Before and After Insertion: An In
Vitro Study by Means of Scanning
Probe Microscopy
Marco Salerno, PhD,* Angelo Itri, MD, DDS,† Marco Frezzato, MSc,‡ and Alberto Rebaudi, MD, DDS§
ral implantology allows for
O rehabilitation of the odontosto-
matognathic system by surgical
and prosthetic techniques suitable for
the insertion of dental implants. To
restore the lost elements, a prosthetic
device is designed, manufactured, and
connected with an abutment mounted
onto a dental implant. The long-term
success of the implant is determined by
several factors1–3 among which os-
seointegration4–6 plays a dominant role
as pointed out early in the 1970s by
Brånemark.7–9 In addition to biocom-
patible chemistry of the material, the
surface morphology of the implant is
important for both primary stability
and long-term bone integration.10–15
Implant designs and surface treatments
that allow for the best coupling to
bone tissue are required in particular
to reduce bone trauma and prosthetic
fractures especially when an immedi-
ate load is applied.4,16,17
We tested seven commercial and
three experimental implants and char-
acterized them morphologically before
*Research Technologist, Department of Nanophysics, Istituto
Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
†Private Practice, via Cesarea 2, Genova, Italy.
‡Technologist, Piezosurgery Inc., Columbus, OH.
§Private Practice, piazza della Vittoria 8, Genova, Italy.
Reprint requests and correspondence to: Marco Salerno,
PhD, Department of Nanophysics, Istituto Italiano di
Tecnologia, via Morego 30, I-16163 Genova, Italy,
Phone: +39-(0)10-71781444, Fax: +39-(0)10-7203,
E-mail: marco.salerno@iit.it
ISSN 1056-6163/15/02403-248
Implant Dentistry
Volume 24  Number 3
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights
reserved.
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000244
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
OF DENTAL IMPLANTS BEFORE AND AFTER INSERTION
Introduction: The surface micro-
structure of dental implants affects
osseointegration, which makes their
accurate topographic characteriza-
tion important. We defined a proce-
dure for evaluation of implant
topography before (pre-) and after
(post-) in vitro implantation test in
bovine bone.
Materials and Methods: The
apical morphology of ten implants
was analyzed in pre- and post-
conditions using atomic force
microscopy or 3D profilometry.
We extracted four topographical
parameters (two amplitude, 1 spa-
tial, and 1 hybrid) and assessed the
differences by analysis of variance.
Results and Discussion: The
implant with coating (Spline Twist
MP-1 HA) was damaged. The two
implants with highest pre-amplitude
parameters (Pitt Easy VTPS,
TLR3815) maintained their character
on testing. Pitt Easy PURETEX and
OT-F1 were the only nondamaged
(pre-) and after (post-) implantation by
3D topographic techniques of profilom-
etry and atomic force microscopy
(AFM). Our goal was not to identify
the best implant because no clinical
experiments have been carried out, but
rather (1) to inspect the amount of
change in surface morphology of the
implant soon after insertion and (2) to
 SALERNO ET AL
implants whose amplitude parame-
ters increased. The surface area
underwent minor changes even
when the texture changed (Tri-Vent,
Pitt Easy PURETEX, Exp #1). The
implants that ranked the lowest in
all parameters before implantation
were DT4013TI, Tri-Vent, OT-F1,
and Exp #2. On testing, DT4013TI
showed the highest decrease in val-
ues, whereas Tri-Vent showed the
highest increase in surface area.
All the experimental implants
showed similar topographic prop-
erties both pre- and post-test.
Conclusion: For most implants,
no major changes occurred in sur-
face topography on implantation.
The procedure applied seems prom-
ising to evaluate the degradation of
implant surface on insertion.
(Implant Dent 2015;24:248–255)
Key Words: dental implants,
atomic force microscopy, surface
morphology, 3D profilometry,
imaging, surface roughness
test applicability of our procedure for
morphological characterization in view
of systematic application.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Samples
Ten implant samples were investi-
gated in a single specimen each (N ¼ 1).
Seven implants were commercial from
 IMPLANT DENTISTRY / VOLUME 24, NUMBER 3 2015 249

Table 1. List of Investigated Implants With Available Information

Bulk
Implant Model Manufacturer Material Surface Treatment Shape
18
Spline twist Zimmer Ti-Al6-V4 Coating with hydroxyapatite type MP-1 Spiral body, with 3-tips
MP-1 HA star flat apex
Tri-vent TRI19 Ti-Al6-V4 Sandblasting with differently sized Zirconia abrading Conical body, with dome
particles at body and apex apex
TLR3815 BioHorizons20 Ti-Al6-V4 Sandblasting with Tricalcium Phosphate Conical body, with dome
apex
DT4013TI Intra-Lock Ti-Al6-V4 (Ossean), sandblasting with Ca Phosphate and acid Cylindrical body, with
System etching dome apex
Europa21
Pitt easy VTPS Sympla22 Grade 4 Ti Ti plasma spray (TPS) carried out in vacuum (VTPS) Cylindrical body, with
dome apex
Pitt easy Sympla22 Grade 4 Ti Nanostructured biomimetic surface, by subtractive Cylindrical body, with
PURETEX means followed by decontamination dome apex
OT-F1 OT medical23 Grade 4 Ti Nanostructured surface by VTPS followed by etching Cylindrical body, with
(NANOPLAST) dome apex
Experimental #1 Eurocoating24 Grade 4 Ti Sandblasting Cylindrical body, with
conical apex
Experimental #2 Eurocoating24 Grade 4 Ti Sandblasting Cylindrical body, with
elliptical flat apex
Experimental #3 Eurocoating24 Grade 4 Ti Sandblasting Flat body with pyramidal
(blade) apex

six different companies, whereas three

were experimental ones from the same
company. The information available on
the investigated implants is reported in
Table 1. Before measurements, the
samples were inspected optically to
check their integrity with a stereomicro-
scope EZD4 (Leica Microsystems,
Wetzlar, Germany).

Implantation
Each implant was inserted into fresh
bovine bone of D1 quality (Misch classi-
fication,25 ;3 cm height and ;8 mm
radial thickness). For insertion of the
screw implants, a hole was first drilled
into the bone at 1300 rpm under continu-
ous cooling jet of physiological solution
with sequential use of different tips up to 3
mm diameter and ;13 mm depth (Fig. 1,
Fig. 1. A, Bovine bone specimen used during site preparation, selected to be D1 type ac- A). The implant fixture was inserted using
cording to Misch classification. B, Typical x-rays micrograph used in some cases to verify that a dynamometric driver set to maximum
the screw head had reached the site base upon implantation. C, Surface damage occurring in 100 N$cm torque. To better comply
the implant Spline Twist MP-1 HA, where the hydroxyapatite coating on apex (white layer) has with the geometrical constraints of
been partly removed upon implantation. D, This micrograph shows the spatial limitation for the analysis by contact probes, the
AFM measurements because of the risk of physical contact between the sample (head of the implant site was undercut of ;0.3
dental implant screw, in the bottom right) and AFM head with glass prisms and probe chip-
holder (top of the picture). In fact, in this case the head touches the sample surface instead of
mm by color bands set on the drill tips.
the probe tip (ie, the free-end of the cantilever pointing from left to right out of the silicon chip A periodontal probe was used to obtain
on the middle left). Similar limitations also apply for the profilometer, even though less critical the best possible contact between
(given the length of the tip, ;4 mm instead of ;15 mm). implant apex and site base. In unclear
cases, we used x-ray micrographs to

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 250 SURFACE MICROSTRUCTURE OF DENTAL IMPLANTS BEFORE AND AFTER INSERTION  SALERNO ET AL

verify that the screw head had reached
the bottom of the hole (Fig. 1, B). For
the blade implant (Exp.#3), insertion
was obtained by press fit.
Soon after insertion, the implant
was removed using the same screw-
driver with inverted torque and with
removal pliers and lateral cutting of
bone when required taking care not to
affect the sample surface.
The implants were cleaned from
osseous matter by suspending them
upside down with a floating support in
a cleaning bath and treating ultrasoni-
cally at 60°C, first 45 minutes in a 50%
vol Tergazyme (Sigma-Aldrich, Milan,
Italy) in deionized (DI) water, then
20 minutes in acetone, 20 minutes in
ethanol, and 10 minutes in DI water,
and blowing dry with nitrogen.
Topographical Measurements
Both pre- and post-samples were
observed by either AFM or profilometry,
with a MFP-3D (Asylum Research,
Santa Barbara, CA) or a XP-2 (Ambios,
Santa Cruz, CA) instrument, respec-
tively. Where possible, we used AFM,
which provides better resolution and
sensitivity. The implants were loaded
on a sample holder such that the surface
of the tip was horizontal by embedding
them in plasticine. Measurements were
carried out at room temperature in air.
AFM was operated in tapping mode with
probes NSG01 (NT-MDT, Russia), with
silicon cantilevers coated with gold and
nominal tip aspect ratio and apex radius
of 22° and 20 nm, respectively. The set
point was 60% of free amplitude oscilla-
tion; acquired images were 2562 pixels
with 90 mm scan size collected with scan
rate of 0.3 Hz.
After AFM probe landing, single
test profiles were acquired at the oppo-
site limits of the scan area. If during
these line scans the piezo actuator did
not reach either the range limit, the
measurement was started. The implants
that were not accessible by AFM due to
Z-size saturation in either direction
were measured with the profilometer
with contact set point 0.1 mg, scan
profile in both up/down directions,
vertical range 100 mm, scan size
1 mm, scan rate 0.07 Hz, filter order 2
(ie, 6118 data points), number of pro-
files 200, step between profiles 5 mm.
The profilometer tip was a conical taper
of synthetic diamond with terminal
diameter ;4 mm.

Image Treatment and Selected

Morphological Parameters
The analysis of the implant samples
(both pre- and post-) consisted of three
phases: morphological reconstruction
of 3D sample surfaces from profilom-
eter data, image processing, and statis-
tical analysis of the data. The 200
profilometer scans were assembled into
1 image of the whole 1 3 1 mm2 area
scanned, using an IGOR 6.2 (Wavemet-
rics, Lake Oswego, OR) procedure. For
image processing and analysis, we used
both the AFM program and the image
analysis program SPIP 2005 (Image
Metrology, Hørsholm, Denmark). For
both AFM and profilometer images,
before analysis, an offset plane fitting
the surfaces was removed. The images
obtained from the profilometer, which
have much elongated pixel size in
y-direction and lower resolution, have
been interpolated between adjacent pix-
els for better rendering (see Fig. 2, B).
During the AFM scans, occasion-
ally part of the image area saturated
overcoming the z-range of the instru-
Fig. 2. Typical morphological images used in the current work. A, Topographical map ob- ment and appeared artificially flat.
tained by AFM, with 256 3 256 pixels on a 90 3 90 mm2 area. B, Topographical map ob- When the saturated area was ,15% of
tained by the profilometer on implant Spline Twist MP-1 HA, where the AFM failed due to the the total, it was masked away and only
too high surface roughness, beyond the Z-range of AFM. C, Map of oscillation phase, the nonsaturated part was considered.
simultaneously acquired in the same AFM measurement of topographical map (A): images of When the saturated area was $15%,
these type, which provide a contrast based on the physical-chemical phase of the surface the image was rejected and a new mea-
have been used for postmeasurements to check the uniformity of the material (ie, to exclude
major bone contamination). D, Typical data set (subimage) used for extraction of the values of
surement was made. Only when it was
the selected parameters to be analyzed, for the case of profilometer data images (this image not possible to obtain five acceptable
comes from digital cropping of the red square in (B)). images in different regions among ten,
we moved to the profilometer.

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 IMPLANT DENTISTRY / VOLUME 24, NUMBER 3 2015 251

Statistical Analysis
For each implant, the parameters
were assigned (N ¼ 5) different values
from AFM images of equivalent re-
gions. When the profilometer was used,
due to the longer acquisition time and
large imaged area, a single image was
obtained for each sample, and from pre-
defined positions inside the image (see
Fig. 2, B), we extracted five subregions
of 90 3 90 mm2 each. The pixel size
was 0.618 3 5 mm2 for these images,
whereas for AFM ones (Fig. 2, C), it
was 0.352 3 0.352 mm2.
For each parameter, mean and SD
were calculated for each implant in pre-
and post-conditions. To evaluate the
statistical significance of the differen-
ces, an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was performed by Origin 8.0 (Origin-
Lab, Northampton, MA). Pair compar-
isons were carried out based on Tukey
test at significance levels a ¼ 0.05,
0.01, and 0.001.

RESULTS
On AFM scan, only two implants,
Spline Twist MP-1 HA and Pitt Easy
VTPS, saturated the Z-range. This
occurred both in post- and pre-conditions
and therefore was not due to surface
damage on testing. Typical images ob-
tained by AFM and 3D profilometer are
shown in Figure 2, A and B, respectively.
Only implant Spline Twist was
clearly damaged by the test. Soon after
the cleaning after the test, its coating
was partly removed showing macro-
scopic grooves visible by the naked eye
(Fig. 2, C). The effect is ascribed to
delamination probably enhanced by
air cavitation during the cleaning soni-
cation. Despite this macroscopic dam-
age, for the sake of completeness, we
carried out the characterization of post-
conditions also for this implant.
The main result is presented in
Figure 3, where the absolute values of
the four selected parameters are plotted
for both pre- (Fig. 3, A), post-condition
(Fig. 3, B) and again as a relative vari-
ation (Fig. 3, C). When looking at
Figure 3, A and B, the above consider-
ation about Z-range saturation occa-
sionally occurring in AFM for Spline
Twist and Pitt Easy VTPS can be better
understood by observing that the
respective Sq roughness were for both
implants higher than the others.
The raw data plotted have been
analyzed by ANOVA to assess the
Fig. 3. These bar plots graphically represent the values of the four selected surface param- possible statistical significance of the
eters (Sq, S10z, Srw, and Sdr, represented each with a bar of different color) on the ten implant differences. The comparisons between
types considered in this work. A, All samples in condition before, (B) all samples in condition
after, and (C) relative differences for each samples between precondition and postcondition.
each pair of implants, both in pre- and
For (A) and (B), the bar heights are the mean values, and the error bars correspond to 61 SD. post-conditions and between the same
For (C), only the differences between the mean values have been plotted. implant pre-vs-post conditions, have
been carried out. The results of all

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 252 SURFACE MICROSTRUCTURE OF DENTAL IMPLANTS BEFORE AND AFTER INSERTION  SALERNO ET AL

comparisons are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4, A describes the comparison
among all implants in precondition:
“0” means not statistically different,
whereas the different degrees of “1,”
namely 1, 1*, and 1**, represent statis-
tically different values with increasing
significance (P , 0.05, 0.01, and
0.001). The table cells at the intersec-
tion of the same implant header have
not been filled as they would all score
0 (each implant in the same condition
of pre or post was not different to it-
self). The four scores list the results of
comparison of the four parameters
considered here in the same order, that
is, Sq, S10z, Srw, and Sdr, from left to
right.
In Figure 4, B, the comparison
between the implants in postcondition
is reported. The subcells that changed in
character with respect to the precondi-
tion table (Fig. 4, A) have been pointed
out by plotting on gray background.
Dark gray cells are most significant
corresponding to changes between 0s
and 1s, whereas light gray background
points out only the minor differences
between different levels of 1. Finally,
we used the same table to also repre-
sent the possible change in character of
each implant between pre- and post-
condition. For this purpose, this time
also, the diagonal line of cells, com-
paring each implant with itself, has
been filled. In some cases, the same
implant has undergone significant
changes (scores from 0 to 1, in dark
gray).
With the exception of implant
Spline Twist MP-1 HA, which was
damaged by the test, we observed that:
• The implants with the highest ampli-
tude parameters are TLR3815 and
Pitt Easy VTPS; the latter shows
higher Z-amplitude features,
whereas the former keeps its surface
parameters almost constant but for
S10z. Actually, these two implants
maintain their topography even after
the insertion into the bone.
• Pitt Easy Puretex and OT-F1 are
the only implants that increment
their amplitude parameters on test-
ing, and, to a lesser extent, also the
hybrid parameter. The reason is
probably that their surface was
nanostructured during fabrication.
• All implants exhibit through Sdr
only minor variations in surface
area, even if the insertion has made
the surface of implants Tri-Vent,
Pitt Easy Puretex, and Exp.#1
rather different from the preinser-
tion state.
• The topography of DT4013TI is
different from that of the previous
implants because it has lower val-
ues for all the surface parameters
but for Srw. Furthermore, this
implant does not change signifi-
cantly after insertion into the bone
even if a general decrease in the
values of the parameters appears.
• Tri-Vent shows the highest incre-
ment in Srw: obviously insertion
made its surface more folded in
the 3D space.
• All the three experimental im-
plants have similar topographic
properties, in both pre- and post-
condition.

DISCUSSION
Concerning the selected implant
types, because this work is a research
investigation without clinical part, we
Fig. 4. Table describing the results of ANOVA. A, The differences among all implants in
also included a blade vent type even if
precondition, whereas (B) represents the differences among all implants in postcondition. this design has never been proven
Additionally, in (B), also the changes in character of each implant with respect to precondition clinically usable.
have been pointed out, by means of different shades of gray: with dark gray cell background, Concerning the measurement
the samples that presented important changes in character have been stressed (ie, from 0 to 1 methods, previous studies addressing
or 1* or 1**, and vice-versa), whereas in light gray, the minor changes occurred have been surface damage used scanning electron
shown (from 1 to 1* or 1**, or vice-versa). In particular, for this comparison (between pre- microscopy and interferometry.26,27
condition and postcondition for each sample), note that in (B), also the differences of each
implant with itself have been considered (which correspond to the along bottom-left to top-
Despite the high quality of these works,
right diagonal, not showing in (A), where it would read all zero). The significance levels for we believe that a direct measurement of
differences within pre- and post-sets are as follows: *P , 0.05, **P , 0.01. 3D topography28 could better avoid
possible artifacts due to locally different

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

surface chemistry and optical constants.
AFM in particular provides higher res-
olution and thus higher accuracy. How-
ever, in both profilometry and AFM,
one has geometrical constraints due to
the physical tip-sample contact, which
restricted the analyzed region of the im-
plants. It was not possible to reach the
recessed regions within the screw
thread where the probe holder would
contact instead of the tip (Fig. 1, D),
so we only assessed the screw top (or
blade sidewall).
When we used the profilometer
instead of the AFM, the Z-range
increased from 15 mm to 100 mm at
the expense of resolution. The step
between lines of the profilometer image
was 5 mm different from the AFM im-
ages with isotropic pixel size z350 nm.
In fact, even along the fast scan axis of
the profilometer, the sampling can be as
fine as 100 nm, whereas the resolution
depends on the tip size, which we esti-
mated to be z500 nm, giving for the
profilometer effective pixel an y:x
aspect ratio z10.
The lack of statistical validity in
our experiment due to no use of repli-
cates for each implant (N ¼ 1) is of no
concern because we did not aim to
assess what type of implant would per-
form best, but we used different im-
plants to test our method towards the
general goal. For the same reason, even
if for insertion of the blade implant no
reproducible method (as the dynamo-
metric key) was used but the skill of
the trained operator, the limited repro-
ducibility did not affect our goal.
The biological effects of the surface
micro-/nano-morphology of implants
are not yet fully understood.10–13,29 Fur-
thermore, whereas 2D surface charac-
terization follows established
standards,30 this is not true for 3D
equivalents, which makes a common
language for description of results from
different laboratories difficult.5,10,30 So
far, only the combination of different
techniques has shown useful results in
evaluation of implant surfaces.12,14
MacDonald31 observed that while
investigating different implant surfaces,
the results were significantly different
depending on the technique. This has
been ascribed to the inappropriateness
of both measurement techniques and
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
IMPLANT DENTISTRY / VOLUME 24, NUMBER 3 2015
data analysis.31,32 The more stringent
instrumental limitations are lateral and
vertical size windows and the respective
resolutions.33,34 On this topic, Wenner-
berg13 published a guide with best pro-
cedures including techniques for data
filtering. For example, calculation of
the fast Fourier transform has been rec-
ognized important to evaluate the tex-
ture to be combined with the spatial
parameters through the hybrid parame-
ters.33–35 Overall, a common opinion is
spread that AFM, now becoming com-
mon also in dentistry, can be the golden
standard for evaluation of micro/
nanotopography.36,37
The parameters, mathematically
defined, have been selected from more
than 20 similarly available roughness
parameters.35–38 We selected at least 1
parameter from the three different clas-
ses of amplitude (Z), spatial (XY), and
hybrid parameters (combining both Z
and XY directions). Usually, more
emphasis is given in industrial field to
amplitude parameters as Sq or Sa. These
quantities define the deviation of the
surface from a perfectly flat and smooth
one in which case they should be both
zero. However, Sq and Sa do not
describe the texture, that is, how the Z
heights are distributed on the surface.
For example, a sinusoidal profile with
different period will present the same
root mean square (RMS) as long as peak
and valley Z values are the same. The
periodicity on the XY plane is described
instead by the spatial parameters, like
the wavelength from analysis in the fre-
quency space. Finally, because a surface
is always expanding in the 3D space,
obviously the different dimensions are
combined. Thus, the actual surface area
depends on both the number of its up-
down envelopes (texture) and on how
large these envelopes are (RMS). The
ratio of actual area to projected area
plays an important role in all interfacial
phenomena dominating chemical sys-
tems (where reactions occur at the
boundaries between species) or some
physical (eg, heat radiation) and biolog-
ical phenomena (biochemical interface
processes with exchange of, eg, hor-
mones or electrical signals). The actual
surface area also correlates with the
fractal dimension of the surface33,38,39
because it is higher when the surface
253
is internally folded. With our selection,
we tried to provide a significant picture
of the implant surfaces.
For the measurements in postcon-
dition, it was important to ensure that
all contaminants, including bone frag-
ments and soft tissues, were removed
from the implant surface. For this
purpose, we sonicated with Terga-
zyme, an enzymatic detergent based
on protease that removes organic re-
siduals. To independently cross-check
the efficacy of the cleaning, we exam-
ined the AFM phase images. In fact,
different materials often present dif-
ferent viscoelastic properties and thus
different AFM probe oscillation.
However, in our measurements of
postsurfaces, no major regions with
different contrast have been identified
(see Fig. 2, C). We conclude that most
bone residuals had been successfully
removed, and the surfaces measured
after test represented the bare implant
surface without overcoating residuals
of contaminants.
According to the tables in Figure 4,
different groups of statistically different
implants can be assigned in both pre-
and post-conditions for the various pa-
rameters. If one identifies these groups
with letters in alphabetical order corre-
sponding to decreasing parameter val-
ues, it appears that in preconditions, for
Sq, group A is formed by Spline Twist
only, while group B is formed by TLR
and Pitt Easy VTPS, and group C con-
tains all the other implants. The same
grouping holds for S10z, an amplitude
parameter also describing the rough-
ness. For Srw, instead (texture) the
group with Spline Twist is C (lowest
values level), which also contains Pitt
Easy VTPS. At the opposite level,
group A is only formed by TLR,
whereas all the other implants belong
to the intermediate level, group B. For
Sdr, again Spline Twist scores alone as
group A and only another group is there
(B) containing all the other implants.
In postconditions, the group rank-
ings both for Sq (amplitude) and Sdr
(hybrid) do not change with respect to
preconditions. On the contrary, for S10z,
group A contains Spline Twist only,
while only another group B exist: in this
case, the TLR and Pitt Easy have been
“flattened” by the test to the same level
 254 SURFACE MICROSTRUCTURE OF
of all the other implants. Finally for Srw,
group A contains Spline Twist and Pitt
Easy VTPS, group B contains TLR
alone, and all the other implants belong
to group C.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of this
in vitro study, we conclude that the pro-
cedure set is appropriate for quantita-
tive evaluation of the surface
microstructure of different dental im-
plants. Only by AFM, one can obtain
images with nanoscale details. How-
ever, the profilometer measurements
can be made comparable with the
AFM ones due to its calibration towards
a reference sample with known topog-
raphy. Finally, the cleaning procedure
after implantation showed to be effec-
tive in all cases but for Spline Twist
MP-1 HA, which was damaged during
insertion: for accurate analysis of this in
post-conditions, a more delicate treat-
ment should be used, perhaps by low
energy plasma. Overall, after the
implantation test on class 1 bone speci-
mens none of the investigated implants
showed major changes in the apex sur-
face micro-structure.
DISCLOSURE
The authors claim to have no
financial interest, either directly or
indirectly, in the products or informa-
tion listed in the article.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Professor Alberto Diaspro, the
Director of the Nanophysics Depart-
ment of IIT, is gratefully acknowl-
edged for having allowed access of
MF to the IIT laboratories.
REFERENCES
1. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M,
et al. Success criteria in implant dentistry: A
systematic review. J Dent Res. 2011;91:
242–248.
2. Albrektsson T, Sennerby L,
Wennerberg A. State of the art of oral im-
plants. Periodontol 2000. 2008;47:15–26.
3. Schroeder A, Van der Zypen E,
Stich H, et al. The reaction of bone, con-
nective tissue and epithelium to endosteal
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
DENTAL IMPLANTS BEFORE AND AFTER INSERTION
implants with titanium sprayed surfaces.
J Maxillofac Surg. 1981;9:15–25.
4. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U,
et al. Biological factors contributing to fail-
ures of osseointegrated oral implants (II):
Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998;
106:721–764.
5. Le Guéhennec L, Soueidan A,
Layrolle P, et al. Surface treatments of tita-
nium dental implants for rapid osseointe-
gration. Dent Mater. 2007;23:844–854.
6. Carlsson L, Röstlund T, Albrektsson
B, et al. Osseointegration of titanium im-
plants. Acta Orthop Scand. 1986;57:
285–289.
7. Brånemark PI, Breine U, Adell R,
et al. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental
prostheses I: Experimental studies. Scand
J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969;3:81–100.
8. Brånemark PI, Hansson B, Adell R,
et al. Osseointegrated implants in the
treatment of edentulous jaw. Experience
from a 10 year period. Scand J Plast Re-
constr Surg. 1977;16:1–132.
9. Brånemark PI. Osseointegration and
its experimental background. J Prosthet
Dent. 1983;50:399–410.
10. Haberstroh KM. Hope for the
short-term use of nanorough metallic
implant formulations in the clinical arena.
Nanomedicine (Lond). 2006;1:355–358.
11. Bucci-Sabattini V, Cassinelli C,
Coelho PG, et al. Effect of titanium
implant surface nanoroughness and cal-
cium phosphate low impregnation on
bone cell activity in vitro. Oral Surg Oral
Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.
2010;109:217–224.
12. Meirelles L. On Nano Size Struc-
tures for Enhanced Early Bone Formation.
Department of Prosthodontics/Dental
Material Science, Department of Biomate-
rials. Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborg Uni-
versity; 2007:70.
13. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. A
review of current knowledge, opinions
and suggestions for possible common
mechanisms behind the increased bone
response reported to different types of
modern oral implant surfaces. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:63–74.
14. Deyneka-Dupriez N, Kocdemir B,
Herr U, et al. Interfacial shear strength of
titanium implants in bone is significantly
improved by surface topographies with
high pit density and microroughness.
J Biomed Mater Res B. 2007;82B:
305–312.
15. Webster TJ, Ejiofor JU. Increased
osteoblast adhesion on nanophase met-
als: Ti, Ti6Al4V, and CoCrMo. Biomateri-
als. 2004;25:4731–4739.
16. Rebaudi A, Pascetta R, Rebaudi O,
et al. Presurgical implant-supported pros-
thesis: Technique for cementation of a defin-
itive prosthesis immediately after surgery.
 SALERNO ET AL
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006;
26:439–451.
17. Rebaudi A. The ray setting proce-
dure: A new method for implant planning
and immediate prosthesis delivery. Int J
Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2007;27:
267–275.
18. Zimmer Dental Inc., 1900 Aston Ave-
nue, Carlsbad, CA 92008, USA, (760) 929–
4300. Available at: http://www.zimmerdental.
com/Home/zimmerDental.aspx. Accessed
March 27, 2015.
19. TRI Dental Implants Int, AG Linden-
strasse 14, CH-6340 Baar, Switzerland.
Available at: http://www.tri-implants.com.
Accessed March 27, 2015.
20. BioHorizons Inc. 2300 River-
chase Center, Birmingham, AL 35244,
USA, (205) 967–7880. Available at:
www.biohorizons.com. Accessed March
27, 2015.
21. Intra-Lock International Inc., 560
West Rogers Circle, Suite 24, Boca Raton,
FL 33487. Available at: www.intra-lock.com.
Accessed March 27, 2015.
22. Sympla S.r.l., via c.pisacane 5
Mantova, 46100 Italy. Available at: www.
sympla.it. Accessed March 27, 2015.
23. OT medical GmbH Konsul-Smidt-
Str. 8b, D-28217 Breme. Available at:
www.ot-medical.de. Accessed March 27,
2015.
24. Eurocoating S.p.A., Via Al Doss De
La Roda 60, 38057 Pergine, Valsugana,
Trento. Available at: http://www.
eurocoating.it. Accessed March 27, 2015.
25. Misch Carl E. Contemporary
Implant Dentistry. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO:
Mosby; 1999:646–647.
26. Senna P, Del Bel Cury AA, Kates
S, et al. Surface damage on dental
implants with release of loose particles
after insertion into bone. Clin Implant
Dent Relat Res. 2013 Nov 28. [Epub
ahead of print].
27. Mints D, Elias C, Funkenbusch P,
et al. Integrity of implant surface modifica-
tions after insertion. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants. 2014;29:97–104.
28. Cresti S, Itri A, Rebaudi A, et al.
Microstructure of titanium cement lithium
disilicate interface in CAD/CAM dental
implant crowns: A three dimensional
profilometric analysis. Clin Implant Dent
Relat Res. 2015;17:e97–e106.
29. Coelho PG, Granjeiro JM,
Romanos GE, et al. Basic research meth-
ods and current trends of dental implant
surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2009;
88:579–596.
30. ISO 4287/1-Geometrical Product
Specifications (GPS)dSurface Texture:
Profile MethoddTerms, Definitions and
Surface Texture Parameters. London:
International Organization for Standardi-
zation, 1997;25.

31. MacDonald W, Campbell P, Fisher J,
et al. Variation in surface texture measure-
ments. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2004;70B:
262–269.
32. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T.
Suggested guidelines for the topo-
graphic evaluation of implant surfaces.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:
331–344.
33. Wieland M, Hanggi P, Hotz W,
et al. Wavelength-dependent measure-
ment and evaluation of surface topogra-
phies: Application of a new concept of
window roughness and surface transfer
function. Wear. 2000;237:231–252.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
IMPLANT DENTISTRY / VOLUME 24, NUMBER 3 2015
34. Wieland M, Textor M, Spencer ND,
et al. Wavelength dependent roughness: A
quantitative approach to characterizing the
topography of rough titanium surfaces. Int
J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16:
163–181.
35. Loeberg J, Mattisson I, Hansson S,
et al. Characterization of titanium dental
implants I: Critical assessment of surface
roughness parameters. Open Biomat J.
2010;2:18–35.
36. Uskokovic  V, Bertassoni LE. Nano-
technology in dental sciences: Moving
towards a finer way of doing dentistry. Ma-
terials. 2010;3:1674–1691.
255
37. Sharma S, Cross SE, Hsueh C,
et al. Nanocharacterization in dentistry.
Int J Mol Sci. 2010;11:2523–2545.
38. SPIP roughness parameters
definitions. 2014. Available at: http://
www.imagemet.com/WebHelp6/Default.
htm#RoughnessParameters/Roughness_
Parameters.htm. Accessed March 27,
2015.
39. Salerno M, Giacomelli L, Derchi G,
et al. Atomic force microscopy in vitro
study of surface roughness and fractal
character of a dental restoration compos-
ite after air-polishing. Biomed Eng Online.
2010;9:59–69.