Eur J Musculoskel Dis 2025 Sep-Dec;14(3):128-135
ARTICLE
IMPLANT SURFACES IN ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY: FROM OSSEOINTEGRATION BIOLOGY TO FUTURE DIRECTIONS
M. Scarpati Cioffari di Castiglione1, S. Lauri2*, I. Mastrorilli3, S. Di Giovanni4, R. Trabucco4, P. Nunu4, M.C. Palumbo4 and A. Danieli5
1 Independent researcher, 81021, Caserta, Italy;
2 Independent researcher, 00073, Rome, Italy;
3 Independent Researcher, 00135, Rome, Italy;
4 Department of System Medicine, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy;
5 Independent Researcher, 00010, Rome, Italy.
*Correspondence to:
Simone Lauri,
Independent Researcher,
00073, Rome, Italy.
e-mail: laurisimone1@gmail.com
| Received: 04 September, 2025 Accepted: 27 October, 2025
|
ISSN 2975-044X (online) ISSN 2038-4106 (print) Copyright © by BIOLIFE 2025 This publication and/or article is for individual use only and may not be further reproduced without written permission from the copyright holder. Unauthorized reproduction may result in financial and other penalties. Disclosure: All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article. |
ABSTRACT
Introduction: This review examines the pivotal role of implant surface characteristics in oral implantology, moving beyond basic osseointegration towards actively influencing tissue response. Modern implant success relies on the implant’s surface properties, affecting bone integration and the quality of the bone-implant interface. This article provides a comprehensive overview of implant surfaces, analyzing treatments, clinical evidence, biological implications, and future directions. Materials and Methods: A literature review was conducted using scientific articles from peer-reviewed sources. Studies addressing implant surface characteristics and their impact on osseointegration were included, and the extracted data was analyzed and synthesized into thematic sections. Discussion: The surface of an implant is a biological interface profoundly influencing osseointegration. Key findings include the role of surface roughness in promoting cell adhesion and bone formation, with moderately rough surfaces (Sa values between 1 and 2 µm) being most effective. Chemical surface properties, such as titanium oxides, influence surface energy and wettability, impacting protein adhesion and osteoblastic activity. Surface modifications like alumina blasting and acid etching optimize the titanium-bone interface. Furthermore, soft tissue attachment and transmucosal designs play a crucial role in long-term peri-implant health. The review also addresses advanced strategies such as bioactive surfaces, immediate loading protocols, and considerations for medically compromised patients, as well as digital innovations. Conclusions: Implant surfaces are dynamic and strategic in modern implantology. Optimizing surfaces and employing proper clinical management are essential for achieving optimal and lasting aesthetic and functional results.
KEYWORDS: Implant surface, osseointegration, bioactive surface, surface roughness, peri-implant tissue
