ReviewCureus2026
Dental Implant Macro-Morphology and Surface Characteristics: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The biological and mechanical stability of dental implants is closely influenced by their macro-morphology, micro- and nano-scale surface topography, and physicochemical surface properties, all of which modulate cell adhesion, osteoblastic activity, and osseointegration. An integrated understanding of the interactions between implant design, surface treatments, and the peri-implant biological response is essential for optimizing clinical outcomes and reducing the risk of complications. This narrative review critically examines the role of implant macro-geometry and the principal surface modification strategies, with particular focus on sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA), anodized, nanostructured, and titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS) surfaces, as well as thread geometry and surface roughness. SLA surfaces are widely considered among the most established and extensively investigated implant surface treatments and have been consistently associated with high survival rates and favorable marginal bone level (MBL) stability. Anodized and nanostructured surfaces may offer additional potential benefits in terms of biofunctionalization and antimicrobial activity; however, some evidence suggests slightly lower cumulative survival rates (CSR) and MBL outcomes. Implant macro-geometry, including body shape and thread configuration, plays a critical role in load distribution, primary stability, and bone-to-implant contact (BIC). Overall, available evidence suggests that implant success results from the synergistic interplay between macro-geometry, surface characteristics, and implant-abutment connection design, rather than from a single variable. Moderately rough surfaces combined with optimized implant design appear to represent a well-balanced approach in terms of osseointegration, mechanical stability, and biological safety. Further studies are warranted to better define the optimal parameters of surface roughness, chemical composition, and implant design, and to improve long-term clinical predictability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.