REVIEW ARTICLE e-ISSN: 2349-0659 p-ISSN; 2350-0964 Implant Surface Microtopography – A Review Sunny Sharma 1 *, Ginne Bhart 2 , Ramandeeep Singh 3 , Puneet Gupta 4 , Basu Dev Basnet 1 , Sonali Sharma 3 A BSTRACT Osseointegration is the direct contact between the living bone and the implant surface without interposed soft tissue at the microscopic level and it is a critical process for implant stability and consequent short- and long-term clinical success. Surface conditions are particularly important as they play a major role in the osseointegration process. Several characteristics among implant surface, such as surface composition, physicochemical properties, surface wettability, and roughness infuence the rate and quality of osseointegration. The goal of this review is to analyze the currently available methods for implant surface modifcation and also discuss the future trends in surface bioengineering and nanotechnology for improving the osseointegration and consequently their biological performance. Keywords: Dental implants, Endosseous implants, Implant surface treatments, Microtopography, Surface coatings Asian Pac. J. Health Sci., (2020); DOI: 10.21276/apjhs.2020.7.2.12 ©2020 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http:// creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. I NTRODUCTION Scientifcally based implant therapy, emerged at the end of the 1970s following ground breaking studies with 10-year clinical results presented by a research group in Sweden directed by Dr. Branemark et al. [1,2] A published study showed that more than 220 implant brands are present globally producing more than 2000 diferent types of implants. [3] Considering the variety of materials, surface treatments, shapes, lengths, and widths available, clinicians have a wide array to choose from them during treatment planning, but which one is to choose? Is still a question of concern? Following implantation, events take place both on the biological side and on the materials side. According to the “interface scenario” of Kasemo and Gold, [4] primary molecular events lead to secondary events that ultimately result in particular cell and tissue responses. Development of interface is complex and involves numerous factors. [5] These include not only surgical technique but also implant-related factors, such as material, shape, topography, and surface chemistry. To alter the surface characteristics to improve implant performance, much attention has been focused on changes in surface roughness and chemistry. Smooth, polished surfaces show poor mechanical integration with bone because, without surface irregularities, these surfaces provide no resistance to mechanical forces at the bone-implant interface. [6] Machine-fnished implants, such as the Branemark System implants (Nobel Biocare, Zurich, Switzerland), have a substantial history of use, whereas they may appear macroscopically smooth, but the implants have a low roughness, in the range of 0.5–1 mm. [7] Surface characteristics directly and indirectly infuence the way of molecules present in the biological world act and this might ultimately control new tissue formation as cell proliferation and diferentiation both depend on quality of early adhesion. [8] Many research eforts have been directed toward improving the bone-implant interface, with the aim of accelerating bone healing and improving bone anchorage to the implant. [9] The interface is improved physically by the architecture of the surface topography. At the micrometer level, the reasoning for this approach is that a rough surface presents a higher developed area than a smooth surface, and thus increases bone anchorage and reinforces the biomechanical interlocking of the bone with the implant, at least up to a certain level of roughness. At the nanometer level, the 1 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh, India 2 MDS, Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Jammu and Kashmir, India 3 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Bhojia Dental College, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, India 4 MDS, Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Yammuna Nagar, Haryana, India Corresponding Author: Dr. Sunny Sharma, Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh, India. Email: sny87sharma87@gmail.com How to cite this article: Sharma S, Bharti G, Singh R, Gupta P, Basnett BD, Sharma S. Implant Surface Microtopography – A Review. Asian Pac. J. Health Sci., 2020; 7(2):48-53 Source of support: Nil Confict of interest: None Received: 15/04/2020 Revised: 26/05/2020 Accepted: 29/05/2020 roughness increases the surface energy, and thus improves matrix protein adsorption, bone cell migration and proliferation, and fnally osseointegration. [10] Historical Background The history of evolution of dental implants is a rich and fascinating travelog through time. The frst evidence of dental implant is attributed to the “Mayan” population roughly around 600 AD where they utilized pieces of shells as implants for replacement of mandibular teeth. [11] In 1913, Dr. EJ Greenfeld placed a 24-gauge hollow latticed cylinder of iridium-platinum soldered with 24-K gold as an artifcial root. [12] In the 1940’s, Formiggini and Zepponi developed post-type endosseous implant. Dr. Raphael Chercheve from France added to the spiral design by creating burs to ease the insertion of the implant for a best ft. Various implant designs expanded in the 1960’s. [13] In 1978, Dr. Branemark et al. presented a two-stage threaded titanium root-form implant. [14] Two other ground-breaking persons of modern implantology were Dr. Schroder and Dr. Straumann of Switzerland. [15]