Table 3.

Antibacterial activity and bone formation in vivo. Outcomes.

Studies, Year	Antibacterial Activity	Bone Formation
Zhang et al. [19]	The SLA-Ta surface hampered the biofilm formation of P. gingivalis, although the mechanism of antibacterial activity of the SLA-Ta surface remains unknown.	Better osseointegration of the Ta coating. The BIC and BD of the coated implants (SLA-Ta) was significantly higher than that of those not modified with Ta (p < 0.05).
Zhou et al. [20]	NR	The Sr coatings gave the implants better osseointegration ability compared to bare metal Ti substrates. BIC p < 0.01 compared to metallic Ti substrate.
Ding et al. [21]	NR	At 4 and 8 weeks, BIC of DC group, was significantly higher than the one of HA group.
Nie et al. [22]	The number of bacteria in the bacitracin (BC) modified Ti implant was significantly lower compared to the unmodified Ti rod group.	BIC for the Ti–BC implants were significantly higher than those of the Ti-implants (p < 0.05).
Lee et al. [23]	NR	-The induced bone was thin trabecular bone, with restricted BIC. -Lamellar bone formation in at implants with to localized rhBMP-2 coating. -BD averaged 38.0 ± 3.8% and 34.4 ± 5.6% -for coronal- and soak-load implants, -respectively (p > 0.05). -BIC-values averaged 25.0 ± 3.8% -and 31.2 ± 3.3% (p > 0.05).
Susin et al. [24]	NR	BIC values for Ti implants versus Ti coated with rhBMP-7 44 ± 17 and 40 ± 9%, respectively. BD values were 44 ± 17% versus 40 ± 9%, respectively.

NR, not reported; BIC, bone implant contact; BD, bone density; Ta, tantalum; Sr, strontium; DC, doxycycline; BC, bacitracin; HA, hydroxyapatite.