Indian Journal of Dental Research

: 2017  |  Volume : 28  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 76--99

Anodized dental implant surface

Sunil Kumar Mishra1, Muktadar Anand Kumar2, Ramesh Chowdhary2,  
1 Department of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics and Implantology, Peoples College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
2 Department of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics and Implantology, Rajarajeswari Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ramesh Chowdhary
Department of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics and Implantology, Rajarajeswari Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru - 560 074, Karnataka


Purpose: Anodized implants with moderately rough surface were introduced around 2000. Whether these implants enhanced biologic effect to improve the environment for better osseointegration was unclear. The purpose of this article was to review the literature available on anodized surface in terms of their clinical success rate and bone response in patients till now. Materials and Methods: A broad electronic search of MEDLINE and PubMed databases was performed. A focus was made on peer-reviewed dental journals. Only articles related to anodized implants were included. Both animal and human studies were included. Results: The initial search of articles resulted in 581 articles on anodized implants. The initial screening of titles and abstracts resulted in 112 full-text papers; 40 animal studies, 16 studies on cell adhesion and bacterial adhesion onto anodized surfaced implants, and 47 human studies were included. Nine studies, which do not fulfill the inclusion criteria, were excluded. Conclusions: The long-term studies on anodized surface implants do favor the surface, but in most of the studies, anodized surface is compared with that of machined surface, but not with other surfaces commercially available. Anodized surface in terms of clinical success rate in cases of compromised bone and immediately extracted sockets has shown favorable success.

How to cite this article:
Mishra SK, Kumar MA, Chowdhary R. Anodized dental implant surface.Indian J Dent Res 2017;28:76-99

How to cite this URL:
Mishra SK, Kumar MA, Chowdhary R. Anodized dental implant surface. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2017 [cited 2021 Oct 16 ];28:76-99
Available from:

Full Text


Branemark implant system was introduced to clinical dentistry in 1965. Since then, these machined dental implants have shown high success rate in implant-supported oral rehabilitation.[1],[2] Machined surface implants were used almost till 2000.[3] One of the key factors for the success of dental implants is the amount of primary stability they achieve immediately after their surgical placement, and to achieve the required primary stability, thread design and surface roughness are the contributing factors.[4],[5],[6] Dental implants with moderately rough surface created by anodization were introduced in 2000 by the name TiUnite (TiU), a commercial name from Nobel Biocare, Sweden. Anodized implant surfaces were having a combination of controlled oxide texture and porosity for an enhanced biologic effect and to improve the environment for better osseointegration. It was documented that anodized implant surface increases the amount of surrounding bone formation, and the initial healing process increases the adsorption of protein and also accumulation and activation of platelets with fibrin retention.[7],[8] However, certain researchers documented that, when the implants are exposed in the oral cavity, the surface roughness on them will enhance plaque accumulation, which can lead to peri-implantitis.[9],[10],[11]

With the aim to understand the influence of anodized surface in enhancing osseointegration, the present systematic review was planned through documented literature in terms of its clinical success rate and the response of the bone to its stimulation.

 Materials and Methods

Source of data and search strategies

The present systematic review was designed based on the PRISMA guidelines.[12] A broad electronic search of MEDLINE and PubMed databases was performed for articles published without any limitation of date of publication. Articles written in English only were included, with focus on peer-reviewed dental journals. The following key words were used in the search strategy: “TiUnite dental implants,” “TiUnite implants,” “oxidized TiUnite implants,” “anodized implants” and “prospective study,” “TiUnite” and “retrospective study,” and “anodized surface implants.”

The titles and abstracts were first read by all the authors for identifying studies meeting the eligibility criteria. The articles which fulfill the inclusion criteria were included for the full-text reading. Manual searches of the references of all full-text articles selected from the electronic search were also performed for additional papers that might meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the study. If there was any disagreement regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the selected articles, it was resolved by a discussion between reviewers.

Inclusion criteria

Only articles related to anodized implant surface were included. Both abstract and full-text articles were included. The inclusive criteria of the search were limited to articles written in English only.

Inclusion criteria for each study group were included as follows:

Group 1

In vivo studies (animal studies) on peri-implant soft tissue responses around anodized implants, studies investigating the tissue response around anodized implants, histomorphometric analysis of animal experiments and torque analysis, and histological analysis of peri-implant soft tissue were included.

Group 2

Group 2 included in vitro studies on the surface properties of anodized implant including those on cell adhesion and bacterial adhesion onto this implant surface. Anodized as material or substrate for cell adhesion and bacterial adhesion had a description not only about the microbiologic analysis but also about the surface topography of the substrate or material.

Group 3

Clinical trials with follow-up of 2 years and above were only included. The included studies reported clinical results of anodized surface and had a minimum number of 14 participants at the baseline examination. Both prospective and retrospective studies were included.

Exclusion criteria

Studies composed of languages other than English were excluded. Simple case report articles and review articles were excluded although references to potentially pertinent articles were noted for further follow-up. Articles unrelated to the topic of anodized implants were excluded. Studies not meeting any of the inclusion criteria were excluded from the review.

Outcomes and variables

For each of the selected article included in this review, the following data were obtained and presented: Year of publication, type of study, number of implants, observation period, implant type, area of implant placement, years of follow-up, number of patients, age range, type of prosthesis, number of failed implants, mean marginal bone loss, and success rate.


Initial search of articles in MEDLINE and PubMed databases with the given key words resulted in 581 articles on anodized implant surface. The reviewers independently screened the abstracts for the articles related to this surface. The initial screening of titles and abstracts resulted in 112 full-text papers, out of which 40 articles were animal studies [Table 1],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52] 16 studies were on cell adhesion and bacterial adhesion on to anodized implants [Table 2],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68] and 47 were related to human studies [Table 3] and [Figure 1].[3],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78],[79],[80],[81],[82],[83],[84],[85],[86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91],[92],[93],[94],[95],[96],[97],[98],[99],[100],[101],[102],[103],[104],[105],[106],[107],[108],[109],[110],[111],[112],[113],[114] Nine studies, which did not fulfill the inclusion criteria, were excluded.{Table 1}{Table 2}{Table 3}{Figure 1}

Animal studies showed that anodized surface exhibits osteoconductive properties with benefits of rough surfaces.[15],[19] Results were not very clear as studies described that the bone-to-implant contact was significantly higher for the anodized implants, but other studies showed additional bone loss after treatment.[28],[32] In studies where implants with different surfaces were connected together, the implants placed distally with machined surface showed more bone loss.[49]

An in vitro study showed the bone growth into the porous structure of the coating of anodized implants and also the surface that reduced the adhesion of Streptococcus mitis compared to the machined surface implants.[54],[64] Anodized surface has showed a potential to prevent long-term implant failure due to corrosion in a complex in vivo environment.[68]

Human clinical trial on patients treated with immediately loaded anodized implants and restored with single crown showed 94% success rate after 3 years and 95% after 5 years.[75],[89] Another clinical trial on complete maxillary arch rehabilitated with anodized implant supported fixed prostheses showed a survival rate of 98.6% in comparison to machined surface implants (92.1%) after 3-year follow-up and 97.3% and 94 %, respectively, after 5 years of follow-up.[69],[90] A 2-year prospective study showed 100% success rate of implant-supported mandibular overdenture.[78] Seven-to-eight years of follow-up of delayed loaded anodized implant showed no failure of implants.[100] Immediately loaded anodized implants on patients treated in postextraction site showed a cumulative survival rate of 100% in 5-year follow-up and 96.52% at 10-year follow-up.[95],[97] Ten percent higher success rate was obtained in a study following immediate loading of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) in the posterior mandible supported by TiU implants.[101] A study found that oxidized surface implants are more suitable for patients who are smokers and are susceptible to periodontitis.[76],[106] Another follow-up study from 1985 to 2011 found the success rate of TiU as 95.4% and machined surface as 84.9%. TiU implant has played a critical role in single-stage implant survival rate.[105]


The original Branemark protocol underwent many modifications to increase the success of implant treatment. One of the modifications was the introduction of anodized, porous implant surface. The questions raised during this systematic review were answered with the help of literature which included in vivo, in vitro, and clinical studies published on anodized surface implants.

In vivo studies (animals)

Many animal studies on peri-implant soft tissue responses around anodized implants were conducted and the main question raised was whether anodized implant surface promotes bone growth. A study by Xiropaidis et al.[15] in Labrador dogs showed TiU surface exhibiting osteoconductive properties more than that of the calcium phosphate-coated implant surface. Histological studies in Beagle dogs showed benefit of rough surfaces relative to minimally rough ones.[19] The bone growth was seen into small pores (<1 μm) of anodized implants placed in minipigs.[30] Gedrange et al.[26] in their study in German domestic pigs found that the immediate loading of the different implant types does not have any negative effect on the bone apposition. In a study done by Jimbo et al.,[32] the bone-to-implant contact was significantly higher for the anodized implants, whereas result of another study done by Stokholm et al.[44] in monkeys found no statistically significant differences between anodized implants for bone reaction around immediate-loaded and delayed-loaded nonsplinted single implants. Result of a study demonstrated that the removal torque of the laser-treated titanium implant placed in rabbits was stronger than anodized implants.[31] Albouy et al. in their study in dogs found that the amount of bone loss was significantly larger in implants with an anodized surface than in implants with a turned surface when the plaque was accumulated. The histological analysis showed that there was increase in vertical size of the lesion at anodized implants. The pocket epithelium and extension of the biofilm apically were significantly larger at anodized implants than at turned implants.[21],[28] When implants with different surface properties are connected, machined implants at the most distal sites might be a potential risk factor for implant–bone binding.[49] A study showed that surface modification of titanium-zirconium by anodization is similar to anodized titanium. It enhances early osseointegration compared to machined implant surfaces.[51] Animal studies provide mixed result on the success of anodized surface implants, so further investigation with the help of clinical trials and in vitro studies is required to comment on anodized surface implants.

In vitro studies

Surface properties and microbiologic response of anodized implants were analyzed in different in vitro studies. In a study by Giannuzzi et al.,[54] the bone growth was seen in the porous structure of the coating of anodized implants, yielding direct evidence of a mechanical locking mechanism of the bone/implant interface. The anodic-oxidized surface has inherent photocatalytic activity, which can enhance osseointegration.[55] Under simulated conditions of inflammation, elevated dextrose concentrations, and after implantation into bone, the corrosion risk of the enhanced oxide implant is lower than machined surface titanium implant counterpart.[59] The biological seal of the tissue-engineered oral mucosa around the four types of titanium surface (polished, machined, sandblasted, and anodized) in an in vitro study was not significantly different.[63] Another in vitro study showed that the anodized surface reduced the adhesion of S. mitis compared to the machined surface.[64] Proliferation, alkaline phosphatase activity, and calcium deposits were significantly higher on anodized surfaces compared to machined surfaces.[67] Improved antibacterial properties, and at the same time, greater stem cell osteogenic capacity seen, when decorating titania nanotubes with nanosized TiO2 particles, may significantly improve implant efficacy.[66] The results obtained in in vitro studies were quite encouraging about anodized surface implants.

Clinical studies

Many clinical questions were raised in this review and an attempt was made to find how anodized implants perform in various clinical situations.

Success rate of anodized implants in maxillary posterior quadrant

Maxillary posterior quadrant presents many problems and limitations to implant placement such as poor bone quality and quantity, pneumatization of the maxillary sinus, and difficulty in accessibility of the area.[115],[116],[117],[118] Sinus floor bone grafting may provide sufficient bone quantity and quality for implant placement; however, it is a costlier affair to the patient and there is a risk of morbidity when compared to other alternate treatment options available such as zygomatic implants.[116] As mentioned earlier, titanium oxide-surfaced implants can be used successfully in the pterygomaxillary region for achieving successful osseointegration.[119],[120],[121] In a study, pterygomaxillary region had shown 8% more survival rate with anodized surface implants.[69] Glauser et al.[71] in their prospective clinical study mentioned that immediately loaded anodized Branemark System Mk IV had a success rate of 97.1% after a 4-year follow-up even though the majority of all implants were placed in posterior regions (88%) and in soft bone conditions (76%). It was found that in regions exhibiting soft bone, modified implant surface texture had shown a successful treatment alternative. Renouard Nisand [72] evaluated the survival rate of short implants (6–8.5 mm) in the resorbed maxilla, four out of five lost implants had a machined surface and one had an oxidized surface, giving survival rates of 92.6% and 97.6% for the different surfaces, respectively. A 5-year cross-sectional retrospective study by Friberg and Jemt [86] mentioned that one turned and two anodized implants failed in the mixed group, thus indicating no significant difference of anodized surface in compromised bone. Rocci et al.[102] found 10% higher success rate following immediate loading of FPDs in the posterior mandible supported by TiU implants. Combination of controlled oxide texture and porosity in anodized surface has made it unique for an enhanced biologic effect. There is increase in initial healing process due to textured surface of anodized implants. Increase in the bone surrounding the implant was observed due to the adsorption of protein and also there was accumulation of platelets and their activation and fibrin retention.[7] Microtextured surface is produced by anodic oxidation of the titanium, resulting in increased thickness of the native oxide layer and provides good primary stability in areas of soft bone quality and thus leads to better secondary stability of implants.[8]

Success rate of anodized implants in grafted sites

Patients with insufficient bone volume may require bone reconstructive procedures before implant placement. Sinus floor augmentation and onlay bone grafting are commonly used in cases of severely resorbed maxilla.[122],[123],[124],[125],[126],[127] To achieve and maintain primary stability in such cases is a very difficult challenge. Brechter et al.[70] studied the survival and stability of anodized implants placed in patients with reconstructive jaw surgery. In a mean follow-up period of 30 months, there was successful outcome of 200 consecutive oxidized implants in various reconstruction situations, with only three failures. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with intraorally harvested bone and delayed placement of either turned or oxidized implants result in equally high long-term survival rates (95.7% for turned implants and 97.7% for oxidized implants).[110] Bahat et al.[94] studied the radiographic outcome of Branemark Mk IV implants in compromised and grafted bone after 3–7-year follow-ups. Long-term clinical outcome of oxidized titanium oxide surface implants were very predictable and successful. They observed that in case of poor bone quality and grafted sites, anodized Branemark MK IV implants inserted with a modified surgical protocol were successful. MK IV implants are fully body-tapered implants and they distribute progressive forces more uniformly into the bone then the parallel-walled self-tapping implants.

Immediate loading of anodized implants

The standard protocols in implant dentistry recommend a healing period of 6 months for the maxilla.[128] However, sometimes, patients did not opt for implant treatment due to more time required for treatment and additional surgical procedures required in case of two-stage implant surgery.[6] An immediate or early loading protocol of dental implants has overcome these patients' problems and has given a good treatment option to them. Some reports indicate that immediate loading in soft bone was very discouraging,[129],[130] but many recent studies have demonstrated encouraging results for immediately loaded anodized implants, where bone quantity and quality were not sufficient for implant placement.[71],[74],[75],[78],[89] Degidi et al.[74] did a 36-month follow-up study of immediately loaded implants with a porous anodized surface. All implants appeared to be osseointegrated. Immediate-loaded implants with a porous anodized surface in the long-term were found to work well with a success rate of 100%. In a prospective study by Turkyilmaz,[75] Branemark System MK III TiU implants were placed in the maxilla. The success rates for both implant and prosthesis were 94% after 3 years. Results showed that early loading of anodized surface implants in the maxilla may offer an alternative treatment option to the standard loading protocol. Turkyilmaz and Tumer [78] carried out another prospective study of 2 years on early versus late loading of unsplinted TiU surface implants supporting mandibular overdentures. The results of the study showed that 1-week early loading approach for implants supporting mandibular overdentures does not adversely influence their clinical performance. No implant was lost, and 100% implant success with both early and delayed loading protocols was obtained. Calandriello andTomatis [89] did a follow-up study for 5 years, for the clinical and radiological performance of anodized Branemark System wide platform implant-loaded immediately supporting single molars in the lower jaw. The cumulative success rate at 5 years was 95.0%. The results of this study encourage the use of immediately loaded anodized implants. Anodized implants with pore diameter of ≤8 mm facilitate the growth of bone into the pores and thus show better osseointegration and can be successfully used for immediate loading of implants.[131] Maló et al.[112] in their long-term study (1–13.5 years) found that anodized implants inserted using an immediate function protocol to support fixed partial rehabilitations (FPR) in both jaws is a viable and safe concept. The cumulative survival rate of anodized implants for ten years in their study was 99.1%. Liddelow and Henry [88] found that immediately loaded overdenture with oxidized implants provides beneficial treatment outcome with 100% success rate of oxidized implants and 57.1% that of machined surface implants.

Anodized implants, marginal bone loss, and peri-implantitis

Many longitudinal studies have shown the marginal bone level to resorb to the first thread after functional loading. This phenomenon could be explained as biomechanical adaptation of bone to the occlusal loading. The problem with rough-surfaced implants was that they accumulate more plaque than smooth-surfaced implants.[132],[133],[134],[135],[136] Many studies showed low levels of plaque and marginal bone loss around anodized implants in spite of early concerns of increased plaque accumulation on rough-surfaced implants when compared to machined implants.[3],[87],[96],[97],[98],[100],[103],[108],[109] Lee et al.[87] in their 3-year prospective radiographic study evaluated the level of marginal bone around different implant systems. They found that functionally loaded rough surface implants with microthread might maintain marginal bone level more positively than anodized implants and hybrid of smooth and rough surface implants. Gelb et al.[100] studied 7–8 year functional loading performance of anodized surface Branemark implants by clinical and radiographic analyses. No implant failure was found. It was found that around 95% of implants in the peri-implant mucosa was healthy. Caous et al.[64] concluded in an in vitro study that the anodized surface reduced the adhesion of S. mitis compared to the machined surface. Mozzati et al.[103] studied the long-term clinical and radiological results in a group of patients having single-tooth and partial restorations supported by Branemark TiU implants, they showed an excellent survival rate of anodized implants; the marginal bone response and soft tissue conditions to anodized implants were favorable. Jungner et al.[108] compared the clinical performance of turned and oxidized implants after more than 5 years of loading. Seven turned implants and one oxidized implant failed, with an overall cumulative survival rate of 94.7 and 99.4%, respectively. After 5 years of function, there was no difference in the rate of implant failure and marginal bone loss around oxidized implants when compared to turned titanium implants. Polizzi et al.[3] in their study found a small but significant difference in bone level in favor of the TiU implants. Thus, the current data are in contrast with other studies reporting similar bone remodeling values for turned and moderately rough surface implants or, most frequently, showing better outcomes for turned implants.[6],[137] Wagenberg and Froum [109] retrospectively evaluated bone stability around implants with anodic oxidized surfaces and compared this with variables which were compared in a previous study. They found that the mesiodistal bone loss of anodic oxidized surface (TiU) implants over a period of 2–12 years was significantly less when compared with machined implants placed with the same immediate implant placement protocol. Watzak et al.[76] in their study found less peri-implant bone loss around rough implant surfaces, which had beneficial effects at distal implants and in smokers. Nicu et al.[98] did a 3-year prospective randomized controlled trial. They compared the clinical, microbiological, and biochemical results of minimally turned (machined) and moderately rough (anodized) implant surfaces in a split-mouth design. In patients more prone to periodontitis, the moderately rough, TiU implants placed in both postextractive and healed areas demonstrated similar clinical results when compared with the smoother, turned implants in 10 years of clinical performance. Five of over 210 implants included in this study (2.38%) were treated for recurrent peri-implantitis, but were lost because treatment failed to completely eradicate the infection.[95] Good treatment outcome with regard to implant survival, condition of the soft tissue, and response of marginal bone was obtained when implants were immediately loaded in postextraction sockets.

Success rate of anodized implants in postextraction sites

Balshi et al.[69] in their complete arch maxillary prospective study evaluated the survival rates of anodized Branemark implants and also compared them with similar study on machined surface implants. Implants were placed in immediate extraction or healed sites. TiU implants had a significantly higher survival rate of 98.6% in comparison to 92.1% for machined surface implants. Degidi et al.[95] in their prospective study evaluated 10-year performance of TiU implant-supported fixed prostheses with an immediate loading protocol in both postextracted and healed regions. The implants placed in healed sites obtained a cumulative survival rate of 98.05%, and in postextractive sites, it was 96.52%. In a 5-year retrospective study by Mura,[97] it was found that there was no implant failure when immediately loaded in postextracted sites, which could be because of anodized surface favoring faster bone healing without either soft or hard tissue problems.


The findings of the systematic review on anodized surface can be concluded as follows:

Animal studies showed mixed result. There was increase in bone loss after treatment with anodized surface implants. However, when implants with different surfaces were connected in such cases, distal implant with machined surface showed more bone lossFavorable results were obtained in in vitro studies with bone growth into the porous structure of the coating of anodized implants. Proliferation, alkaline phosphatase activity, and calcium deposits were significantly higher on anodized surfaces compared to machined surfacesLong-term clinical studies on anodized surfaced implants do favor the surface, but in most of the studies, anodized surface is compared with that of machined surface, but not with other surface commercially available. Anodized surface in terms of clinical success rate in cases of compromised bone and immediately extracted sockets has shown favorable success with more than 95% of clinical success. Anodized surface did show plaque accumulation in marginal bone losses when compared to machine surfaces in one study, but several other studies showed decreased levels of plaque and reduced marginal bone loss around anodized implants. Many recent studies have demonstrated encouraging results for immediately loaded anodized implants where bone quantity and quality were not sufficient for implant placement with success rate of more than 94%.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


1Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1977;16:1-132.
2Branemark PI. Introduction to osseointegration. In: Branemark PI, Zarb G, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue-Integrated Prosthesis. Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p. 11-76.
3Polizzi G, Gualini F, Friberg B. A two-center retrospective analysis of long-term clinical and radiologic data of TiUnite and turned implants placed in the same mouth. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26:350-8.
4Karlsson U, Gotfredsen K, Olsson C. A 2-year report on maxillary and mandibular fixed partial dentures supported by Astra Tech dental implants. A comparison of 2 implants with different surface textures. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:235-42.
5Cordioli G, Majzoub Z, Piattelli A, Scarano A. Removal torque and histomorphometric investigation of 4 different titanium surfaces: An experimental study in the rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:668-74.
6Gotfredsen K, Karlsson U. A prospective 5-year study of fixed partial prostheses supported by implants with machined and TiO2-blasted surface. J Prosthodont 2001;10:2-7.
7Larsson C, Thomsen P, Aronsson BO, Rodahl M, Lausmaa J, Kasemo B, et al. Bone response to surface-modified titanium implants: Studies on the early tissue response to machined and electropolished implants with different oxide thicknesses. Biomaterials 1996;17:605-16.
8Hall J, Lausmaa J. Properties of a new porous oxide surface on titanium implants. Appl Osseointegration Res 2000;1:5-8.
9Røynesdal AK, Ambjørnsen E, Støvne S, Haanaes HR. A comparative clinical study of three different endosseous implants in edentulous mandibles. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:500-5.
10Wennerberg A, Sennerby L, Kultje C, Lekholm U. Some soft tissue characteristics at implant abutments with different surface topography. A study in humans. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30:88-94.
11De Boever AL, Quirynen M, Coucke W, Theuniers G, De Boever JA. Clinical and radiographic study of implant treatment outcome in periodontally susceptible and non-susceptible patients: A prospective long-term study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1341-50.
12Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.
13Zechner W, Tangl S, Tepper G, Fürst G, Bernhart T, Haas R, et al. Influence of platelet-rich plasma on osseous healing of dental implants: A histologic and histomorphometric study in minipigs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:15-22.
14Weibrich G, Hansen T, Kleis W, Buch R, Hitzler WE. Effect of platelet concentration in platelet-rich plasma on peri-implant bone regeneration. Bone 2004;34:665-71.
15Xiropaidis AV, Qahash M, Lim WH, Shanaman RH, Rohrer MD, Wikesjö UM, et al. Bone-implant contact at calcium phosphate-coated and porous titanium oxide (TiUnite)-modified oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:532-9.
16Sul YT, Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Which surface properties enhance bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, TiUnite, and Osseotite implant surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:319-28.
17Al-Nawas B, Wagner W, Grötz KA. Insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis of dental implant systems in an animal model with loaded implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:726-32.
18Wikesjö UM, Susin C, Qahash M, Polimeni G, Leknes KN, Shanaman RH, et al. The critical-size supraalveolar peri-implant defect model: Characteristics and use. J Clin Periodontol 2006;33:846-54.
19Al-Nawas B, Groetz KA, Goetz H, Duschner H, Wagner W. Comparative histomorphometry and resonance frequency analysis of implants with moderately rough surfaces in a loaded animal model. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:1-8.
20De Maeztu MA, Braceras I, Alava JI, Gay-Escoda C. Improvement of osseointegration of titanium dental implant surfaces modified with CO ions: A comparative histomorphometric study in beagle dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;37:441-7.
21Albouy JP, Abrahamsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T. Spontaneous progression of peri-implantitis at different types of implants. An experimental study in dogs. I: Clinical and radiographic observations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:997-1002.
22Albouy JP, Abrahamsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T. Spontaneous progression of ligatured induced peri-implantitis at implants with different surface characteristics. An experimental study in dogs II: Histological observations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:366-71.
23Lee J, Sieweke JH, Rodriguez NA, Schüpbach P, Lindström H, Susin C, et al. Evaluation of nano-technology-modified zirconia oral implants: A study in rabbits. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36:610-7.
24Sul YT, Jönsson J, Yoon GS, Johansson C. Resonance frequency measurements in vivo and related surface properties of magnesium-incorporated, micropatterned and magnesium-incorporated TiUnite, Osseotite, SLA and TiOblast implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1146-55.
25Carmagnola D, Abati S, Addis A, Ferrieri G, Chiapasco M, Romeo E, et al. Time sequence of bone healing around two implant systems in minipigs: Preliminary histologic results. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2009;29:549-55.
26Gedrange T, Gredes T, Gredes M, Allegrini MR, Borsos G, Vegh A, et al. Comparative animal study on hard tissue integration and bone formation of different Nobel Biocare implants. J Physiol Pharmacol 2009;60 Suppl 8:117-21.
27Al-Ahmad A, Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad M, Faust J, Bächle M, Follo M, Wolkewitz M, et al. Biofilm formation and composition on different implant materials in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2010;95:101-9.
28Albouy JP, Abrahamsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T. Implant surface characteristics influence the outcome of treatment of peri-implantitis: An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:58-64.
29Jimbo R, Ono D, Hirakawa Y, Odatsu T, Tanaka T, Sawase T. Accelerated photo-induced hydrophilicity promotes osseointegration: An animal study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011;13:79-85.
30Grüner D, Fäldt J, Jansson K, Shen Z. Argon ion beam polishing: A preparation technique for evaluating the interface of osseointegrated implants with high resolution. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:547-52.
31Kang SH, Cho SA. Comparison of removal torques for laser-treated titanium implants with anodized implants. J Craniofac Surg 2011;22:1491-5.
32Jimbo R, Fernandez-Rodriguez J, Sul YT, Johansson CB. Principal component analysis: A novel analysis to evaluate the characteristics of osseointegration of different implant surfaces. Implant Dent 2011;20:364-8.
33Poulos NM, Rodriguez NA, Lee J, Rueggeberg FA, Schüpbach P, Hall J, et al. Evaluation of a novel calcium phosphate-coated titanium porous oxide implant surface: A study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:731-8.
34Gostovic AS, Todorovic A, Lazic V, Todorovic A, Milinkovic I, Lekovic V. Immediate implant loading with fixed dental restorations – An animal model study. Vojnosanit Pregl 2012;69:181-9.
35Albouy JP, Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T. Spontaneous progression of experimental peri-implantitis at implants with different surface characteristics: An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2012;39:182-7.
36Manfrin Arnez MF, Xavier SP, Pinto Faria PE, Pedrosa Júnior WF, Cunha TR, de Mendonça RJ, et al. Implant osseointegration in circumferential bone defects treated with latex-derived proteins or autogenous bone in dog's mandible. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:135-43.
37Choi JY, Lee HJ, Jang JU, Yeo IS. Comparison between bioactive fluoride modified and bioinert anodically oxidized implant surfaces in early bone response using rabbit tibia model. Implant Dent 2012;21:124-8.
38Gottlow J, Barkarmo S, Sennerby L. An experimental comparison of two different clinically used implant designs and surfaces. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14 Suppl 1:e204-12.
39Carcuac O, Abrahamsson I, Albouy JP, Linder E, Larsson L, Berglundh T. Experimental periodontitis and peri-implantitis in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:363-71.
40Gomes JB, Campos FE, Marin C, Teixeira HS, Bonfante EA, Suzuki M, et al. Implant biomechanical stability variation at early implantation times in vivo: An experimental study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:e128-34.
41Park JW. Osseointegration of two different phosphate ion-containing titanium oxide surfaces in rabbit cancellous bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24 Suppl A100:145-51.
42Al-Ahmad A, Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad M, Fackler A, Follo M, Hellwig E, Bächle M, et al. In vivo study of the initial bacterial adhesion on different implant materials. Arch Oral Biol 2013;58:1139-47.
43Charalampakis G, Abrahamsson I, Carcuac O, Dahlén G, Berglundh T. Microbiota in experimental periodontitis and peri-implantitis in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1094-8.
44Stokholm R, Isidor F, Nyengaard JR. Histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of peri-implant bone of immediate or delayed occlusal-loaded non-splinted implants in the posterior mandible – An experimental study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1311-8.
45Dagher M, Mokbel N, Jabbour G, Naaman N. Resonance frequency analysis, insertion torque, and bone to implant contact of 4 implant surfaces: Comparison and correlation study in sheep. Implant Dent 2014;23:672-8.
46Carcuac O, Abrahamsson I, Charalampakis G, Berglundh T. The effect of the local use of chlorhexidine in surgical treatment of experimental peri-implantitis in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42:196-203.
47Stübinger S, Waser J, Hefti T, Drechsler A, Sidler M, Klein K, et al. Evaluation of local cancellous bone amelioration by poly-L-DL-lactide copolymers to improve primary stability of dental implants: A biomechanical study in sheep. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:572-80.
48Lee HJ, Yang IH, Kim SK, Yeo IS, Kwon TK.In vivo comparison between the effects of chemically modified hydrophilic and anodically oxidized titanium surfaces on initial bone healing. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2015;45:94-100.
49Koretake K, Oue H, Okada S, Takeda Y, Doi K, Akagawa Y, et al. The effect of superstructures connected to implants with different surface properties on the surrounding bone. J Funct Biomater 2015;6:623-33.
50Kohal RJ, Bächle M, Renz A, Butz F. Evaluation of alumina toughened zirconia implants with a sintered, moderately rough surface: An experiment in the rat. Dent Mater 2016;32:65-72.
51Sharma A, McQuillan AJ, Shibata Y, Sharma LA, Waddell JN, Duncan WJ. Histomorphometric and histologic evaluation of titanium-zirconium (aTiZr) implants with anodized surfaces. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2016;27:86.
52Duncan WJ, Gay JH, Lee MH, Bae TS, Lee SJ, Loch C. The effect of hydrothermal spark discharge anodization in the early integration of implants in sheep sinuses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:975-80.
53Göransson A, Gretzer C, Johansson A, Sul YT, Wennerberg A. Inflammatory response to a titanium surface with potential bioactive properties: An in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006;8:210-7.
54Giannuzzi LA, Phifer D, Giannuzzi NJ, Capuano MJ. Two-dimensional and 3-dimensional analysis of bone/dental implant interfaces with the use of focused ion beam and electron microscopy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:737-47.
55Sawase T, Jimbo R, Wennerberg A, Suketa N, Tanaka Y, Atsuta M. A novel characteristic of porous titanium oxide implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:680-5.
56Jarmar T, Palmquist A, Brånemark R, Hermansson L, Engqvist H, Thomsen P. Characterization of the surface properties of commercially available dental implants using scanning electron microscopy, focused ion beam, and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008;10:11-22.
57Sul YT, 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 Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:631-40.
58Kang BS, Sul YT, Oh SJ, Lee HJ, Albrektsson T. XPS, AES and SEM analysis of recent dental implants. Acta Biomater 2009;5:2222-9.
59Messer RL, Seta F, Mickalonis J, Brown Y, Lewis JB, Wataha JC. Corrosion of phosphate-enriched titanium oxide surface dental implants (TiUnite) under in vitro inflammatory and hyperglycemic conditions. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2010;92:525-34.
60Dohan Ehrenfest DM, Vazquez L, Park YJ, Sammartino G, Bernard JP. Identification card and codification of the chemical and morphological characteristics of 14 dental implant surfaces. J Oral Implantol 2011;37:525-42.
61Chang YS, Bennani V, Tawse-Smith A, Girvan L. Effect of a cordless retraction paste material on implant surfaces: An in vitro study. Braz Oral Res 2011;25:492-9.
62Chai WL, Brook IM, Emanuelsson L, Palmquist A, van Noort R, Moharamzadeh K. Ultrastructural analysis of implant-soft tissue interface on a three dimensional tissue-engineered oral mucosal model. J Biomed Mater Res A 2012;100:269-77.
63Chai WL, Brook IM, Palmquist A, van Noort R, Moharamzadeh K. The biological seal of the implant-soft tissue interface evaluated in a tissue-engineered oral mucosal model. J R Soc Interface 2012;9:3528-38.
64Caous JS, Lövenklev M, Fäldt J, Langton M. Adhesion of Streptococcus mitis and Actinomyces oris in co-culture to machined and anodized titanium surfaces as affected by atmosphere and pH. BMC Oral Health 2013;13:4.
65Liu R, Lei T, Dusevich V, Yao X, Liu Y, Walker MP, et al. Surface characteristics and cell adhesion: A comparative study of four commercial dental implants. J Prosthodont 2013;22:641-51.
66Liu W, Su P, Chen S, Wang N, Wang J, Liu Y, et al. Antibacterial and osteogenic stem cell differentiation properties of photoinduced TiO2 nanoparticle-decorated TiO2 nanotubes. Nanomedicine (Lond) 2015;10:713-23.
67Sharma A, McQuillan AJ, Sharma LA, Waddell JN, Shibata Y, Duncan WJ. Spark anodization of titanium-zirconium alloy: Surface characterization and bioactivity assessment. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2015;26:221.
68Grotberg J, Hamlekhan A, Butt A, Patel S, Royhman D, Shokuhfar T, et al. Thermally oxidized titania nanotubes enhance the corrosion resistance of Ti6Al4V. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2016;59:677-89.
69Balshi SF, Wolfinger GJ, Balshi J. Analysis of 164 titanium oxide-surface implants incompletely edentulous arches for fixed prosthesis anchorage using the pterygomaxillary region. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:946-52.
70Brechter M, Nilson H, Lundgren S. Oxidized titanium implants in reconstructive jaw surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7 Suppl 1:S83-7.
71Glauser R, Ruhstaller P, Windisch S, Zembic A, Lundgren A, Gottlow J, et al. Immediate occlusal loading of Brånemark System TiUnite implants placed predominantly in soft bone: 4-year results of a prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7 Suppl 1:S52-9.
72Renouard F, Nisand D. Short implants in the severely resorbed maxilla: A 2-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7 Suppl 1:S104-10.
73Aalam AA, Nowzari H. Clinical evaluation of dental implants with surfaces roughened by anodic oxidation, dual acid-etched implants, and machined implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:793-8.
74Degidi M, Perrotti V, Piattelli A. Immediately loaded titanium implants with a porous anodized surface with at least 36 months of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006;8:169-77.
75Turkyilmaz I. A 3-year prospective clinical and radiologic analysis of early loaded maxillary dental implants supporting single-tooth crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:389-90.
76Watzak G, Zechner W, Busenlechner D, Arnhart C, Gruber R, Watzek G. Radiological and clinical follow-up of machined- and anodized-surface implants after mean functional loading for 33 months. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:651-7.
77Turkyilmaz I, Avci M, Kuran S, Ozbek EN. A 4-year prospective clinical and radiological study of maxillary dental implants supporting single-tooth crowns using early and delayed loading protocols. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2007;9:222-7.
78Turkyilmaz I, Tumer C. Early versus late loading of unsplinted TiUnite surface implants supporting mandibular overdentures: A 2-year report from a prospective study. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:773-80.
79Balshi SF, Wolfinger GJ, Balshi TJ. A retrospective analysis of 44 implants with no rotational primary stability used for fixed prosthesis anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:467-71.
80Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Komárek A, van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of oral implant failures, up to abutment connection. J Clin Periodontol 2007;34:610-7.
81Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Rangert B. Implants placed in immediate function in periodontally compromised sites: A five-year retrospective and one-year prospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97 6 Suppl: S86-95.
82Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Komárek A, van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of late oral implant loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:670-6.
83Ostman PO, Hellman M, Sennerby L. Immediate occlusal loading of implants in the partially edentate mandible: A prospective 1-year radiographic and 4-year clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:315-22.
84Balshe AA, Assad DA, Eckert SE, Koka S, Weaver AL. A retrospective study of the survival of smooth- and rough-surface dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:1113-8.
85Eliasson A, Blomqvist F, Wennerberg A, Johansson A. A retrospective analysis of early and delayed loading of full-arch mandibular prostheses using three different implant systems: Clinical results with up to 5 years of loading. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:134-48.
86Friberg B, Jemt T. Clinical experience of TiUnite implants: A 5-year cross-sectional, retrospective follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12 Suppl 1:e95-103.
87Lee SY, Piao CM, Koak JY, Kim SK, Kim YS, Ku Y, et al. A  3-year prospective radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around different implant systems. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:538-44.
88Liddelow G, Henry P. The immediately loaded single implant-retained mandibular overdenture: A 36-month prospective study. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:13-21.
89Calandriello R, Tomatis M. Immediate occlusal loading of single lower molars using Brånemark system wide platform TiUnite implants: A 5-year follow-up report of a prospective clinical multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011;13:311-8.
90Jemt T, Stenport V, Friberg B. Implant treatment with fixed prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part 1: Implants and biologic response in two patient cohorts restored between 1986 and 1987 and 15 years later. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:345-55.
91Hatano N, Yamaguchi M, Yaita T, Ishibashi T, Sennerby L. New approach for immediate prosthetic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible with three implants: A retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:1265-9.
92Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M. Implants (3.3 mm diameter) for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior regions: A retrospective clinical study with up to 11 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011;13:95-103.
93Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ, Wulc D, Balshi SF. A prospective analysis of immediate provisionalization of single implants. J Prosthodont 2011;20:10-5.
94Bahat O, Sullivan RM, Smidt A. Placement of Brånemark Mk IV implants in compromised and grafted bone: Radiographic outcome of 61 sites in 27 patients with 3- to 7-year follow-ups. Quintessence Int 2012;43:293-303.
95Degidi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A. 10-year follow-up of immediately loaded implants with TiUnite porous anodized surface. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:828-38.
96Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Francischone C, Rigolizzo M. “All-on-4” immediate-function concept for completely edentulous maxillae: A clinical report on the medium (3 years) and long-term (5 years) outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14 Suppl 1:e139-50.
97Mura P Immediate loading of tapered implants placed in postextraction sockets: Retrospective analysis of the 5-year clinical outcome. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:565-74.
98Nicu EA, Van Assche N, Coucke W, Teughels W, Quirynen M. RCT comparing implants with turned and anodically oxidized surfaces: A pilot study, a 3-year follow-up. J Clin Periodontol 2012;39:1183-90.
99Sánchez-Garcés MA, Costa-Berenguer X, Gay-Escoda C. Short implants: A descriptive study of 273 implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:508-16.
100Gelb D, McAllister B, Nummikoski P, Del Fabbro M. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of Brånemark implants with an anodized surface following seven-to-eight years of functional loading. Int J Dent 2013;2013:583567.
101Arnhart C, Dvorak G, Trefil C, Huber C, Watzek G, Zechner W. Impact of implant surface topography: A clinical study with a mean functional loading time of 85 months. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:1049-54.
102Rocci A, Rocci M, Rocci C, Scoccia A, Gargari M, Martignoni M, et al. Immediate loading of Brånemark system TiUnite and machined-surface implants in the posterior mandible, part II: A randomized open-ended 9-year follow-up clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:891-5.
103Mozzati M, Gallesio G, Del Fabbro M. Long-term (9-12 Years) outcomes of titanium implants with an oxidized surface: A retrospective investigation on 209 implants. J Oral Implantol 2015;41:437-43.
104Pettersson P, Sennerby L. A 5-year retrospective study on Replace Select Tapered dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:286-95.
105Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ, Slauch RW, Balshi SF. A retrospective comparison of implants in the pterygomaxillary region: Implant placement with two-stage, single-stage, and guided surgery protocols. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:184-9.
106Sayardoust S, Gröndahl K, Johansson E, Thomsen P, Slotte C. Implant survival and marginal bone loss at turned and oxidized implants in periodontitis-susceptible smokers and never-smokers: A retrospective, clinical, radiographic case-control study. J Periodontol 2013;84:1775-82.
107Jokstad A, Alkumru H. Immediate function on the day of surgery compared with a delayed implant loading process in the mandible: A randomized clinical trial over 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1325-35.
108Jungner M, Lundqvist P, Lundgren S. A retrospective comparison of oxidized and turned implants with respect to implant survival, marginal bone level and peri-implant soft tissue conditions after at least 5 years in function. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16:230-7.
109Wagenberg B, Froum SJ. Long-term bone stability around 312 rough-surfaced immediately placed implants with 2-12-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:658-66.
110Jungner M, Legrell PE, Lundgren S. Follow-up study of implants with turned or oxidized surfaces placed after sinus augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1380-7.
111Friberg B, Jemt T. Rehabilitation of edentulous mandibles by means of osseointegrated implants: A 5-year follow-up study on one or two-stage surgery, number of implants, implant surfaces, and age at surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:413-24.
112Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Queridinha B, Ferro A, Gravito I. Axial implants in immediate function for partial rehabilitation in the maxilla and mandible: A retrospective clinical study evaluating the long-term outcome (Up to 10 Years). Implant Dent 2015;24:557-64.
113Jemt T, Olsson M, Franke Stenport V. Incidence of first implant failure: A retroprospective study of 27 years of implant operations at one specialist clinic. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17 Suppl 2:e501-10.
114Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Gravito I. Single-tooth rehabilitations supported by dental implants used in an immediate-provisionalization protocol: Report on long-term outcome with retrospective follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17 Suppl 2:e511-9.
115Lekholm U, Adell R, Brånemark PI. Possible complications. In: Brånemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue-Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p. 233-40.
116Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 2003;8:328-43.
117Tatum H Jr. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am 1986;30:207-29.
118Brånemark PI, Gröndahl K, Ohrnell LO, Nilsson P, Petruson B, Svensson B, et al. Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla: Technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2004;38:70-85.
119Ivanoff CJ, Widmark G, Johansson C, Wennerberg A. Histologic evaluation of bone response to oxidized and turned titanium micro-implants in human jawbone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:341-8.
120Knobloch L, Larsen PA, Rashid B, Carr AB. Six-month performance of implants with oxidized and machine surfaces restored at 2, 4, and 6 weeks postimplantation in adult beagle dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:350-6.
121Massaro C, Rotolo P, De Riccardis F, Milella E, Napoli A, Wieland M, et al. Comparative investigation of the surface properties of commercial titanium dental implants. Part I: Chemical composition. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2002;13:535-48.
122Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 1980;38:613-6.
123Sailer HF. A new method of inserting endosseous implants in totally atrophic maxillae. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1989;17:299-305.
124Adell R, Lekholm U, Grondahl K, Brånemark PI, Lindstrom L, Jacobsson M. Reconstruction of severely resorbed edentulous maxillae using osseointegrated fixtures in immediate autologous bone grafts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:233-46.
125Lundgren S, Nyström E, Nilson H, Gunne J, Lindhagen O. Bone grafting to the maxillary sinuses, nasal floor and anterior maxilla in the atrophic edentulous maxilla. A two-stage technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;26:428-34.
126Nyström E, Lundgren S, Gunne J, Nilson H. Interpositional bone grafting and Le Fort I osteotomy for reconstruction of the atrophic edentulous maxilla. A two-stage technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;26:423-7.
127Cricchio G, Lundgren S. Donor site morbidity in two different approaches to anterior iliac crest bone harvesting. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5:161-9.
128Morton D, Jaffin R, Weber HP. Immediate restoration and loading of dental implants: Clinical considerations and protocols. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19 Suppl 1:103-8.
129Glauser R, Rée A, Lundgren A, Gottlow J, Hämmerle CH, Schärer P. Immediate occlusal loading of Brånemark implants applied in various jawbone regions: A prospective, 1-year clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001;3:204-13.
130Rocci A, Martignoni M, Gottlow J. Immediate loading in the maxilla using flapless surgery, implants placed in predetermined positions, and prefabricated provisional restorations: A retrospective 3-year clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5 Suppl 1:29-36.
131Sul YT, Johansson CB, Jeong Y, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Resonance frequency and removal torque analysis of implants with turned and anodized surface oxides. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:252-9.
132Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416.
133Jung YC, Han CH, Lee KW. A 1-year radiographic evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:811-8.
134Jemt T, Lekholm U, Gröndahl K. 3-year followup study of early single implant restorations ad modum Brånemark. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1990;10:340-9.
135Kitamura E, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Influence of marginal bone resorption on stress around an implant – A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:279-86.
136Berglundh T, Gotfredsen K, Zitzmann NU, Lang NP, Lindhe J. Spontaneous progression of ligature induced peri-implantitis at implants with different surface roughness: An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:655-61.
137Wennström JL, Ekestubbe A, Gröndahl K, Karlsson S, Lindhe J. Oral rehabilitation with implant-supported fixed partial dentures in periodontitis-susceptible subjects. A 5-year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:713-24.