The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2007 ) > List of Articles


Histological Comparison of Bone to Implant Contact in Two Types of Dental Implant Surfaces: A Single Case Study

Jamil Awad Shibli, Magda Feres, Luciene Cristina de Figueiredo, Giovanna Iezzi, Adriano Piattelli

Citation Information : Shibli JA, Feres M, de Figueiredo LC, Iezzi G, Piattelli A. Histological Comparison of Bone to Implant Contact in Two Types of Dental Implant Surfaces: A Single Case Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007; 8 (3):29-36.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-8-3-29

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-07-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2007; The Author(s).



The purpose of this single case study was to evaluate the influence of different implant surfaces on human bone and osseointegration.

Methods and Materials

A 47-year-old partially edentulous woman received two experimental implants along with conventional implant therapy. Experimental implants placed in the mandibular ramus consisted of machined and anodized surfaces, respectively. After three months of healing, the experimental implants were removed and prepared for ground sectioning and histological analysis.


The data demonstrate anodized implant surfaces present a higher percentage of osseointegration when compared to a machined surface in cortical human bone after a healing period of three months.


This single case study suggests an anodized implant surface results in a higher percentage of bone to implant contact when compared to machined surfaced implants when placed in dense bone tissue. However, further investigations should be conducted.


Shibli JA, Feres M, de Figueiredo LC, Iezzi G, Piattelli A. Histological Comparison of Bone to Implant Contact in Two Types of Dental Implant Surfaces: A Single Case Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 March;(8)3:029-036.

PDF Share
  1. Relationship between surface characteristics and the degree of bone-implant integration. J Biomed Mater Res. 1992 Jun;26(6):831-33.
  2. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52(2):155-70.
  3. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res. 1991 Jul;25(7):889-902.
  4. Properties of a new porous oxide surface on titanium implants. Apll. Osseointegration Res. 2000 1(1):5-8.
  5. The significance of the surface properties of oxidized titanium to the bone response: special emphasis on potential biochemical bonding of titanium implants. Biomaterials 2003 Oct;24(22):3893-907.
  6. Histologic evaluation of bone response to oxidized and turned titanium micro-implants in human jawbone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003 May/Jun;18(3):341-8.
  7. Bone contact around acid-etched implants: a histological and histomorphometrical evaluation of two human-retrieved implants. J Oral Implantol. 2003;29(1):13-8.
  8. Bone-implant contact on machined and dual acid-etched surfaces after 2 months of healing in the human maxilla. J Periodontol. 2003,Jul;74(7):945-56.
  9. Histologic evaluation of the bone integration of TiO2 blasted and turned titanium microimplants in human. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001, Apr;12(2):128-34.
  10. Anodic oxide films containing Ca and P of titanium biomaterial. Biomaterials 2001, Aug:22(16):2199-206.
  11. Effect of parallel surface microgrooves and surface energy on cell growth. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995, Apr;29(4):511-8.
  12. Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation and protein syntesis of human osteoblast-like cells. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995, Mar;29(3):389-401.
  13. Implant surface characteristics modulate differentiation behavior of cells in the osteoblastic lineage. Adv Dent Res. 1999 Jun;13:38-48.
  14. Bone formation at titanium porous oxide (TiUnite®) oral implants in type IV bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:105-111.
  15. Longterm evalution of non-submerged ITI implants. Part I. 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multicenter study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997,Jun;8(3):161-72.
  16. Early failures in 4641 consecutively placed Bränemark dental implants. A study from stage I surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991, summer;6(2):142-6.
  17. The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone. A 5-year analysis. J Periodontol. 1991, Jan;62(1):2-4.
  18. Influence of variations in implant diameters: a 3- to 5-year retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:175-182.
  19. On surgical and implant related factors influencing integration and function of titanium implants. Experimental and clinical aspects. [thesis]. Göteborg: Göteborg University, 1999.
  20. Human histological research: is it necessary? Humane? Ethical? J Periodontol 2005; 76:1207-1210.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.