Comparative fractal analysis of osseointegration in dental implants with different surface properties
Abstract
Aims: In this study, the effects of acid-roughened (SLA), hydrophilic acid-roughened (SLActive), and biphasic calcium phosphate (RBM)-roughened implant surfaces on trabecular bone structure were evaluated comparatively using the fractal analysis (FA) method obtained from dental panoramic radiography (DPRs).
Methods: In this comparative study, placed 75 dental implants (150 ROIs) with different surface properties in the bone. FA was performed using the box counting method. The implants were divided into groups according to their acid-roughened (n=25), hydrophilic SLA (n=25), and biphasic calcium phosphate roughened (n=25) surface structures. An independent sample t-test was used to compare two groups when the assumption of normality was met, and a one-way analysis of variance was used to compare more than two groups.
Results: In this study, there were no significant differences among implant surface groups regarding mesial fractal dimension (FD) values, whereas a significant difference was found in favor of implants with RBM surfaces in distal FD values (p=0.040). The lowest FD values were observed in SLA-surfaced implants in most regions. Differences in implant diameter and length did not affect FD values (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, implant surface characteristics may be related to differences in fractal complexity of peri-implant trabecular bone. RBM-surfaced implants showed higher distal fractal dimension values compared to SLA and hydrophilic SLA implants, potentially indicating a different trabecular bone response.
Keywords
- Implant surface modification
- fractal analysis
- dental panoramic radiography
- osseointegration
- trabecular bone
Supporting Institution
none
Ethical Statement
Ethics committee approval has been obtained
Thanks
none
References
- Bitinas D, Bardijevskyt G. Short implants without bone augmentation vs. long implants with bone augmentation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust Dent J. 2021;66(suppl 1). doi:10.1111/adj.12859
- Kato CNAO, Barra SG, Tavares NPK, et al. Use of fractal analysis in dental images: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2020;49(2): 20180457. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20180457
- Milillo L, Fiandaca C, Giannoulis F, et al. Immediate vs non-immediate loading post-extractive implants: a comparative study of implant stability quotient (ISQ). Oral Implantol (Rome). 2016;9(3):123-131. doi:10.11138/orl/2016.9.3.123
- Alghamdi HS, Jansen JA. The development and future of dental implants. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(2):167-172. doi:10.4012/dmj.2019-140
- Perrotti V, Aprile G, Degidi M, et al. Fractal analysis: a novel method to assess roughness organization of implant surface topography. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011;31(6):633-639.
- Chopra D, Gulati K, Ivanovski S. Understanding and optimizing the antibacterial functions of anodized nano-engineered titanium implants. Acta Biomater. 2021;127:80-101. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2021.03.027
- Scarano A, Khater AGA, Gehrke SA, et al. Animal models for investigating osseointegration: an overview of implant research over the last three decades. J Funct Biomater. 2024;15(4):83. doi:10.3390/jfb 15040083
- Tozum TF, Bal BT, Turkyilmaz I, Gulay G, Tulunoglu I. Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37(3):217-224. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02038.x
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental Materials and Equipment, Oral Implantology
Journal Section
Research Article
Publication Date
July 20, 2026
Submission Date
March 25, 2026
Acceptance Date
June 24, 2026
Published in Issue
Year 2026 Volume: 9 Number: 4
APA
Geçkil, N., & Temur, K. T. (2026). Comparative fractal analysis of osseointegration in dental implants with different surface properties. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, 9(4), 1038-1044. https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1915668
AMA
1.Geçkil N, Temur KT. Comparative fractal analysis of osseointegration in dental implants with different surface properties. J Health Sci Med / JHSM. 2026;9(4):1038-1044. doi:10.32322/jhsm.1915668
Chicago
Geçkil, Nida, and Katibe Tuğçe Temur. 2026. “Comparative Fractal Analysis of Osseointegration in Dental Implants With Different Surface Properties”. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine 9 (4): 1038-44. https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1915668.
EndNote
Geçkil N, Temur KT (July 1, 2026) Comparative fractal analysis of osseointegration in dental implants with different surface properties. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine 9 4 1038–1044.
IEEE
[1]N. Geçkil and K. T. Temur, “Comparative fractal analysis of osseointegration in dental implants with different surface properties”, J Health Sci Med / JHSM, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1038–1044, July 2026, doi: 10.32322/jhsm.1915668.
ISNAD
Geçkil, Nida - Temur, Katibe Tuğçe. “Comparative Fractal Analysis of Osseointegration in Dental Implants With Different Surface Properties”. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine 9/4 (July 1, 2026): 1038-1044. https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1915668.
JAMA
1.Geçkil N, Temur KT. Comparative fractal analysis of osseointegration in dental implants with different surface properties. J Health Sci Med / JHSM. 2026;9:1038–1044.
MLA
Geçkil, Nida, and Katibe Tuğçe Temur. “Comparative Fractal Analysis of Osseointegration in Dental Implants With Different Surface Properties”. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, vol. 9, no. 4, July 2026, pp. 1038-44, doi:10.32322/jhsm.1915668.
Vancouver
1.Nida Geçkil, Katibe Tuğçe Temur. Comparative fractal analysis of osseointegration in dental implants with different surface properties. J Health Sci Med / JHSM. 2026 Jul. 1;9(4):1038-44. doi:10.32322/jhsm.1915668
