Oral implant surfaces: Part 1--review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them.

By T. Albrektsson, A. Wennerberg. International Journal of Prosthodontics, 2004

1,093 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration (2016, background): “On review of the available human studies, Wennerberg et al. [25] have found little clinical evidence so far to clearly state a preference for SLActive over SLA implants.”
Significance of calcium phosphate coatings for the enhancement of new bone osteogenesis--a review. (2014, unknown): “37 pare the results obtained by different researchers [2, 66, 85, 182, 188, 289, 299, 541-548].”
Periimplant diseases: where are we now?--Consensus of the Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology. (2011, background): “Based on the surface roughness, implants have been proposed to be categorized as (Albrektsson & Wennerberg 2004): ! smooth Sa o0.”
Engineering biocompatible implant surfaces (2013, background): “5 lm in depth and 4 lm in diameter [191] that could be supported by numerous in vivo studies on implant topography effects [192,193].”
Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review. (2009, background): “Albrektsson & Wennerberg (2004) suggested smooth surfaces to have an Sa value of o0.”