Benchmark performance of anodized vs. sandblasted implant surfaces in an acute dehiscence type defect animal model.

Objectives: Crestal bone formation represents a crucial aspect of the esthetic and biological success of dental implants. This controlled preclinical study analyzed the effect of implant surface and implant geometry on de novo crestal bone formation and osseointegration. Materials and methods: Histological and histomorphometrical analysis was performed to compare three implant groups, that is, (1) a novel, commercially available, gradient anodized implant, (2) a custom‐made geometric replica of implant "1," displaying a superhydrophilic micro‐rough large‐grit sandblasted and acid‐etched surface, and (3) a commercially available implant, having the same surface as "2" but a different implant geometry. The study applied a standardized buccal acute‐type dehiscence model in minipigs with observation periods of 2 and 8 weeks of healing. Results: The amount of newly formed crestal bone (BATA) around control groups (2) and (3) was significantly increased when compared to the test group (1) at the 8 weeks of healing time point. Similar results were obtained for all parameters related to osseointegration and direct bone apposition, to the implant surface (dBIC, VBC, and fBIC), demonstrating superior osseointegration of the moderately rough, compared to the gradient anodized functionalization. After 2 weeks, the osseointegration (nBIC) was found to be influenced by implant geometry with group (3) outperforming groups (1) and (2) on this parameter. At 8 weeks, nBIC was significantly higher for groups (2) and (3) compared to (1). Conclusions: The extent (BATA) of de novo crestal bone formation in the acute‐type dehiscence defects was primarily influenced by implant surface characteristics and their ability to promote osseointegration and direct bone apposition. Osseointegration (nBIC) of the apical part was found to be influenced by a combination of surface characteristics and implant geometry. For early healing, implant geometry may have a more pronounced effect on facilitating osseointegration, relative to the specific surface characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]