Table 2.
Author Year [Reference] | Outcome Measure (Measurement) | Comparison Factor | Results | Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|
Coelho et al. 2012 [46] | Histology
|
AB/AE vs. AB/AE + CAP |
Week 1:
|
Ar CAP treatment in vivo fostered higher levels of contact with the surrounding tissues and it is a promising option to hasten osseointegration |
Giro et al. 2013 [49] | Histology
|
CaP vs. CaP + CAP |
Week 1:
|
Ar CAP-conditioned surfaces supported in vivo a more uniform presence of osteogenic tissue and a closer interaction with the implant surface which may lead to faster and greater osseointegration |
Danna et al. 2015 [47] | Histology
|
|
Week 3
|
Air-based CAP may improve osseointegration of Ti surfaces but not CaP surfaces |
Canullo et al. 2018 [45] | Histology
|
ZirTi vs. ZirTi + CAP |
1 month
|
Activation of the implant surface by Ar CAP may enhance the osseointegration process. |
Naujokat et al. 2019 [22] | Histology:
|
AB/AE vs. AB/AE + CAP |
Week 8
|
Ar CAP conditioning resulted in a higher BIC ratio and ITBD, indicating a beneficial effect although neither faster or stronger bone adherence or mineralization was detected by fluorescence labeling |
Abbreviations: Bone-to-implant contact (BIC); Bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO); Alumina-blasted/acid-etched (AB/AE); Calcium phosphate (CaP); Grit blasted/acid etched (GB/AE); Old bone (OB); New bone (NB); Total mineralized bone (TMB); Soft tissues (ST); Interthread bone density (ITBD); Peri-implant bone density (PIBD); Cold atmospheric plasma (CAP); Argon (Ar); * Statistical significance.