{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025245441795231416, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007713884992987377, 'mean_word_length': 6.064356435643564, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Surface Characterization and Clinical Review of Two Commercially Available Implants

Purpose:To characterize topographically and chemically the surfaces of 2 commercially available implants. Furthermore, to gather an overview of the clinical results of these implant systems. Materials and Methods:Two commercially available oral implants were analyzed using optical interferometry, scanning electron microscopy, and energy dispersive spectroscopy. In addition, a literature search for all the clinical articles on the same implants was performed. Results:No significant differences of topographical parameters were found between the 2 implants, except for the hybrid parameter Sdr presenting significant higher values for the Ankylos implants. Both surfaces had a homogenous microporosity. At higher magnifications of scanning electron microscope images, evenly distributed nanostructures (approximately 10 nm) were visible. Chemically, mainly titanium, oxygen and carbon were detected. Fifty-six clinical articles were included for the review. The implant survival rates (minimum follow-up: 5 years) ranged between 87.7% and 100%. Conclusions:The examined commercially available implants showed a moderately rough surface, with a homogenous microporosity. Nanofeatures were detected on the surface of both implants. The clinical performances of these implants were comparable to that of other commercialized implant systems.