A systematic assessment of the stability of SLA® vs. SLActive® implant surfaces over 12 weeks.

objectiveThis study aims to assess the impact of two implant surfaces, SLA and SLActive, on implant stability, measured by ISQ levels over a 12-week period.

methodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to February 2023 was conducted. The inclusion criteria were studies involving adult patients treated with SLA and SLActive implants, with assessment of implant stability through ISQ levels up to 12 weeks post-placement.

resultsFrom the initial 180 potentially eligible publications identified, six RCTs were included in our analysis, comprising 326 implants (50.6% SLA and 49.4% SLActive). Three studies were classified as low risk, while three had an unclear risk of bias. Overall, SLActive implants demonstrated comparable stability levels, as measured by ISQ, to SLA implants within the 12-week interval for implants placed in the maxillary or mandibular region. However, findings from the RCTs suggest that the SLActive surface led to an earlier transition point, a faster return to stability levels, and higher ISQ values at the end of 12 weeks compared to the SLA surface for implants placed in the palatal region.

conclusionSLActive surfaces exhibited stability levels similar to SLA surfaces for maxillary and mandibular implants. Notably, for palatal implants, SLActive resulted in a quicker transition point and higher stability levels at the 12-week mark. Due to the limited number of trials and potential study heterogeneity, further research is needed to validate these findings.