SA and RBM surface evaluation for osseointegration and marginal bone loss.

Biomechanical and Histomorphometrical Evaluation of Bone-Implant Integration at Sand Blasting with Alumina and Acid Etching (SA) Surface
By In-Hee Cho, Hong-Young Choi, Woo-Jung Kim, Tae-Gwan Eom


The implant surface feature and roughness have been proposed as a potential factor affecting bone integration and marginal bone loss. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the difference between SA and RBM surface for osseointegration and marginal bone loss in the mandible of beagle dogs.

Materials & Methods:

All mandibular premolars and first molars were extracted bilaterally in 10 beagles. After 8 weeks of extraction, 48 implants (22 SA surface implants and 26 RBM surface implants) were implanted in the mandible of beagle dogs. After 12 weeks of healing, the implants were evaluated marginal bone levels, histomorphometric analysis and removal torque. 36 implants were used for the removal torque test. 12 implants were processed for histomorphometric analysis. For statistical analysis, t-tests were performed (p < .05).

micrographs of titanium implant surfacesFig. 1. SEM micrographs of titanium implant surfaces
(a) RBM surface
(b) SA surface.
Fig. 2. Changes in the marginal bone levels of RBM and SA.

Fig. 2. Changes in the marginal bone levels of RBM and SA.


There were no statistically significant differences in relation to histomorphometric evaluations between RBM and SA surfaces. Marginal bone loss was 0.83 ± 0.51 mm (RBM surface) and 0.96 ± 0.43 mm (SA surface). No differences could be observed between the two surfaces of implants. After a 12 weeks healing period, BIC and BA of SA surface were similar to the RBM surface. There were no significant differences in the BIC and BA between the two groups (p > .05). The mean removal torque value was higher for a SA surface (127.2 ± 37.0 Ncm) than for a RBM surface (61.9 ± 34.5 Ncm). The differences between RBM and SA surfaces were significant (p < .001). 


It can be concluded that the SA surface was more effective than RBM surface in enhancing the biomechanical interlocking between the new bone and implant.

Chart of Histomorphometric analysis (BIC and BA). 

Fig. 3. Histomorphometric analysis (BIC and BA).

Chart of Removal torque values (Ncm).

Fig. 4. Removal torque values (Ncm).

Download button to get a high resolution PDF Case

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *