Implant Surface – SInergy™
Southern Implants has been a pioneer in the top-end specialist sector of the dental implant market since 1987, servicing maxillofacial and craniofacial surgeons, prosthodontists, periodontists and general dental practitioners alike.
The Southern Implants surface is classified as “moderately rough” (Sa 1-2μm), and is achieved by blasting with alumina particles followed by cleaning with inert solvents to remove blasting residues.
A. The first experimentation with this Southern Enhanced surface was in 1992. After extensive validation it was put into widespread clinical use in 1997. It is achieved by a subtractive process in which specifically sized and shaped, sharp cornered, Alumina particles (A 1203) are blasted with decontaminated air onto the implant surface with controlled pressure, displacement and time.
B. The particle size of 11 Oμm is supported by the work of Soskalne (Israel) and Wennerberg (Sweden) on the one hand and Ronald (Norway) on the other. Based on their research, greatest bone to titanium bond strength is obtained with abrasion particles greater than 75μm and less than 170μm.
C. Szmukler-Moncler has analyzed and compared the popular implant surfaces in publications and a presentation at the AO, San Francisco 2004. He reports that the Southern Surface is remarkably consistent and free of contaminants whilst those that are acid etched or oxidized are shown to be highly variable.
D. There seems to be consensus in the literature that “moderately rough” surfaces pose no risks for the patient and are therefore safe to use. Moderately rough was defined by Albrektsson as Sa 1.0 to 2.0μm (applied Osseointegration Research Vol 5, 2006). The Southern surface has Sa = 1.43 in one published study and Sa= 1.55 on implants analyzed by Prof Ann Wennerberg in 2006. Dr Mats Wikstrom, Chief of Clinics, Branemark Centre Goteborg, in 2007 concluded that the Southern surface is one of the three best documented moderately rough surfaces on the market.
The Oral lmplantology Research Group, University of Otago, conducted Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) involving Southern Implants rough surface. These Studies have gone in excess of 10 years in both mandibles and maxillas. The 8 year and 5 year results are published in Cochrane Collaboration reports. Standardized radiographs show marginal bone loss of all the implants to be well within the criteria set by Albrektsson & Zarb (1993, 1998) as well as Fourmousis & Bragger (1999). In conclusion, it is a well documented surface with a consistent manufacturing process.
Duddeck DU. Quantitative and qualitative element-analysis of implant-surfaces by SEM and EDX. 2015, 1-22.
Doornewaard R, Christiaens V, De Bruyn H, Jacobsson M, Cosyn J, Vervaeke S, Jacquet W. Long-Term Effect of Surface Roughness and Patients’ Factors on Crestal Bone Loss at Dental Implants. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2017 Apr;19(2):372-99.
Duddeck DU, Maghaireh H, Faber FJ, Neugebauer J. SEM surface analyses of 120 sterile-packed implants. Clinical Science. 2015, 64-75.
Duddeck DU. Quantitative and qualitative element-analysis of implant-surfaces by SEM and EDX. 2015, 1-226.
Duddeck DU. Quantitative and qualitative element-analysis of implant-surfaces by SEM and EDX. 2015, 1-198.
Duddeck DU. Quantitative and qualitative element-analysis of implant-surfaces by SEM and EDX. 2015, 1-186.
Duddeck DU. Quantitative and qualitative element-analysis of implant-surfaces by SEM and EDX. 2015, 1-192.
Lasserre JF, Toma S, Bourgeois T, El Khatmaoui H, Marichal E, Brecx MC. Inﬂuence of low direct electric currents and chlorhexidine upon human dental bioﬁlms. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research. 2016, 1-9. doi: 10.1002/cre2.34
Peck MT, Chrcanovic BR. Chemical and Topographic Analysis of Eight Commercially Available Dental Implants. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(5):354-360.
Melin Svanborg L, Andersson M, Wennerberg A. Surface Characterization of Commercial Oral Implants on the Nanometer Level. Wiley InterScience. 2009, 1-8. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.31538.
Tawse-Smith A, Ma S, Wu H, Yeah A, Jansen Van Vuuren L, Jansen van Vuuren W. Changes In Surface Characteristics Of Moderately Roughened Grade Iv Titanium Disc Following A Standardised Implantoplasty Technique: An In-Vitro Study. Braz J Periodontol – 2015;25(02), 22-33.
Tawse-Smith A, Atieh MA, Tompkins G, Duncan WJ, Reid MR, Stirling CH. The effect of piezoelectric ultrasonic instrumentation on titanium discs: A microscopy and trace elemental analysis in vitro study. John Wiley & Sons. Int J Dent Hygiene. 2015;1-11, doi: 10.1111/idh.12142.
Vandeweghe S, De Bruyn H. The Effect of Smoking on Early Bone Remodeling on Surface Modiﬁed Southern Implants. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2009, 1-9; doi 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00198.x.
Vandeweghe S, Cosyn J, Thevissen E, Teerlinck J, De Bruyn H. The Inﬂuence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface-Modiﬁed Southern Implants. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2010, 1-8. doi 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00308.x.
Vandeweghe S, Hawker P, De Bruyn H. An Up to 12-Year Retrospective Follow-Up on Immediately Loaded, Surface-Modiﬁed Implants in the Edentulous Mandible. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2015, 1-9. doi 10.1111/cid.12322.
Vandeweghe S, Ferreira D, Vermeersch L, Mari€en M, De Bruyn H. Long-term retrospective follow-up of turned and moderately rough implants in the edentulous jaw. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 00,1-6 doi: 10.1111/clr.12602
For further detailed information about the Implant Surface, please see the documents made available for your reference.
The Southern enhanced surface is not a “coating”, it is an abraded rough surface of pure Titanium. This is the same dense form of titanium common to “machined” surface implants…
Southern Implants Product Brochure
Dental implants are an indispensable part of dental treatment options. With the globalization of medical infrastructures and higher standards of living , implant applications continue to increase…