'IMPLANT SURFACE COATINGS': PAST, PRESENT, ADVANCED, AND FUTURE TRENDS- A REVIEW.

International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17253130 1 Original Article 137 ‘IMPLANT SURFACE COATINGS’: PAST, PRESENT, ADVANCED, AND FUTURE TRENDSA REVIEW. Dr.B. LakshmanaRao 1 , Dr. PSH Lakshmi Parvathi 2 , Dr.G. Sirisha 3 , Dr. A.Sathvika 4 , Dr.A. Harika 5. 1.Prof & HOD, Dept of Prosthodontics, Lenora Institute of Dental Sciences, Rajahmundry, A.P., 2. Sr. Lecturer, Dept of Prosthodontics, Lenora Institute of Dental Sciences, Rajahmundry, A.P., 3. Reader, Dept of Prosthodontics, Lenora Institute of Dental Sciences, Rajahmundry, A.P., 4. Sr. Lecturer, Dept of Prosthodontics, Lenora Institute of Dental Sciences, Rajahmundry, A.P., 5. Sr. Lecturer, Dept of Prosthodontics, Lenora Institute of Dental Sciences, Rajahmundry, A.P. ARTICLE INFO  ABSTRACT Paper ID: IJASTR68DD600ECDE23 Received: 2025-09-02 Published: 2025-10-02 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.1725 3130 Page No: 137-152 Digital Elevaon Models (DEMs) form the foundaon for hydrological modelling, yet their accuracy is oen constrained by terrain complexity and spaally varying hydrological processes. In regions such as Anambra State, Nigeria, where diverse topographic forms and dynamic hydrological condions prevail, fusing mulple DEM sources can enhance elevaon accuracy. However, the influence of key hydrological variables on DEM fusion performance remains insufficiently understood. This study evaluates how surface roughness, topographic wetness, drainage density, and flow accumulaon affect the accuracy of fused DEMs compared to original datasets. Shu.le Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) and Advanced Land Observing Satellite Phased Array L-band Synthec Aperture Radar (ALOS PALSAR) DEMs were fused using weighted averaging, simple averaging, and regression-based techniques, with a high-resoluon reference DEM used for validaon. The results show that regression-based fusion produced the most hydrologically consistent elevaon model. It preserved microtopographic variability while avoiding the excessive fla.ening observed in weighted and simple averages. The regression-based DEM closely matched reference terrain for surface roughness, maintained balanced wetness gradients, and represented drainage density and flow accumulaon more accurately than both single-source DEMs and other fusion methods. In contrast, ALOS PALSAR tended to exaggerate ruggedness, wetness extremes, and drainage complexity, while SRTM moderately overesmated flow accumulaon and stream segmentaon. Weighted and simple averages reduced noise but oversmoothed hydrological features. These findings demonstrate that regression-based fusion outperforms convenonal methods by integrang spaal error modelling and retaining hydrological integrity. Improved DEM fusion has direct implicaons for flood risk mapping, watershed management, erosion modelling, and infrastructure planning in hydrologically dynamic regions of southeastern Nigeria. The study emphasizes the need for hydrology-aware fusion strategies to enhance DEM reliability for terraindriven environmental applicaons. KEY WORDS: Dental implants; Surface coatings; SandblastedLarge-gritAcid-etched (SLA); Hydroxyapatite; Nanostructures; Calcium-incorporated implants; Antimicrobial coatings; Smart coatings; Osseointegration. Corresponding Author: Dr. B. LakshmanaRao, Mail:  [email protected] Internaonal Journal of Advanced Scienfic and Technical Research Available online on hp://www.rspublicaon.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954 Cite This Paper : Dr.B. LakshmanaRao, Dr. PSH Lakshmi Parvathi, Dr.G. Sirisha, Dr. A.Sathvika and Dr.A. Harika (2025). "‘IMPLANT SURFACE COATINGS’: PAST, PRESENT, ADVANCED, AND FUTURE TRENDSA REVIEW.". INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH (IJASTR), vol. 15, no. 5, 2025, pp. 137-152. DOI: h4ps://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17253130 International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17253130 1 Original Article 138 INTRODUCTION A layer of material put on the surface of an implant to give it certain biological or mechanical properties. Adds a new bioactive or functional layer, like hydroxyapatite, calcium phosphate, bisphosphonates, BMP-2, or antimicrobial agents. Improve the ability of bone to grow and integrate. Surface engineering has changed over the years. In the 1970s and 1990s, it started with mechanical and ceramic coatings. Then it moved on to microand macro-roughening (SLA, TPS, RBM, acid-etch), then to bioactive and nano-functional coatings (Ca-incorporation, HA, peptides, growth factors), and finally to multifunctional, antibacterial, drug-eluting, and smart surfaces. Every generation has to give up some of the complexity, durability, osseointegration speed, and infection control that comes with making things. [1,2] Need for Surface Coangs on Dental Implants 1. Better Osseointegration Pure machined titanium surfaces don't bond with bone very well because they are smooth and not very bioactive. Surface coatings, like hydroxyapatite, calcium phosphate, and SLA changes, make bone-to-implant contact (BIC) stronger, which speeds up osseointegration. [1] 2. Early Implant Stability Surface coatings give the surface a roughness on the micro and nano scales that helps osteoblasts stick to it and change, which speeds up primary stability. [2] 3. Better long-term success rates: Moderately roughened and bioactive coated implants exhibit enhanced survival rates relative to smooth implants, especially in compromised bone.[3] 4. Bioactivity and Osteoinduction: Bioactive coatings, like calcium phosphate, BMP-2, and bisphosphonates, actively encourage bone growth instead of just supporting it. [4] 5. Stopping bone loss around implants: Antiresorptive coatings like bisphosphonates lower the activity of osteoclasts around implants, which helps keep the bone around the implant healthy. [5] 6.Antimicrobial Protection: Antimicrobial coatings (e.g., silver nanoparticles, antimicrobial peptides, zwitterionic polymers) reduce bacterial adhesion and risk of peri-implantitis. [6] 7. Personalized Medicine Approach: For systemic conditions like osteoporosis or diabetes, personalized coatings (like bisphosphonates, strontium, or drug-eluting layers) can help bones heal faster and make implants work better. [7] Surface coatings are necessary to turn dental implants from passive devices into biofunctional interfaces that speed up osseointegration, make them more stable, protect the bone around the implant, stop infections, and adapt to the patient's specific systemic conditions. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17253130 1 Original Article 139 Without surface coatings, implants would only be held in place by mechanical means. This would make them heal more slowly and make them more likely to fail in clinical situations where they are not working properly. Benefits of Implant Surface Coangs 1.Better Osseointegration : Coatings like hydroxyapatite (HA) and calcium phosphate make bone-to-implant contact (BIC) better by copying the mineral composition of natural bone. Osseointegration happens faster and stronger on surfaces that are machined or only slightly roughened. [1] 2. Speeding up the healing of bones: Bioactive coatings, like HA and calcium phosphate, speed up the healing process and allow for earlier loading protocols. [4] 3.Drug / Growth Factor Delivery: Implants coated with bisphosphonate or BMP-2 can change the way bones work in the area around them, slowing down resorption and speeding up bone formation. Local delivery avoids the side effects that can happen when drugs are given systemically. [5] 4. Antimicrobial Properties: Coatings that have silver nanoparticles, antimicrobial peptides, or antibiotics in them make it harder for bacteria to stick to surfaces and form biofilms. This could lower the risk of periimplantitis.[6] 5. Better Wettability and Protein Adsorption: Some biofunctional coatings make surfaces more hydrophilic, which helps proteins stick to them and osteoblasts stick to them. This improves early cell interactions that are important for osseointegration. [8] 6. Possibility of Customized Treatment (in research): Coatings customized with bisphosphonates, strontium, or other agents enable patient-specific modulation of bone response, particularly advantageous in osteoporosis or systemic bone disorders. [7] Evaluaon of Implant Surface Coangs: [9,10] I. The old/past techniques for dental implant surface coatings: a). Machined (Turned) Surfaces –The first generation of implants (Brånemark system) had machined (turned) titanium surfaces that were not very rough and took a long time to osseointegrate. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17253130 1 Original Article 140 b). Titanium Plasma-Sprayed (TPS) Coatings – Porous titanium coating to increase surface area. Plasma-sprayed titanium (TPS) and hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings were added to speed up the integration of bone. c). Plasma-Sprayed Hydroxyapatite (HA) Coatings – Bioactive ceramic coating to promote osseointegration. HA improved bone bonding, but problems with delamination and long-term stability kept it from being used widely. d). Grit-Blasted Surfaces – Roughened with abrasive particles (e.g., alumina, titanium oxide). e). Acid-Etched Surfaces – Microroughened using acids (e.g., HCl, H₂SO₄). f). Combination (Grit-Blasted + Acid-Etched) – Early versions of SLA surfaces. g). Other Early Modifications – Anodization (basic form), fluoride treatment (initial stage). II. Present Techniques / Methods: i). Sandblasted, Large-grit, Acid-etched (SLA) Surfaces - Gold standard, moderately roughened titanium surface. The understanding that surface roughness enhances osseointegration resulted in the development of sandblasted, acid-etched (SLA), anodized titanium, and resorbable blast media (RBM) surfaces. These moderately rough surfaces showed better bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and survival rates than smooth or HA-coated implants. [3,11] ii).SL Active (Hydrophilic SLA)-Chemically modified SLA with high surface energy and wettability for faster osseointegration. Chemically modified SLA surfaces called SLActive made surfaces more hydrophilic, which helped early osseointegration. [12] iii). Anodized Surfaces (e.g., TiUnite)- Electrochemically thickened titanium oxide layer with microporosity. iv). Calcium Phosphate (CaP) CoatingsThin, resorbable CaP layers to enhance bioactivity and bone bonding. v). Fluoride-Modified Titanium Surfaces-Surface modification with fluoride ions to stimulate osteoblast activity. vi). Laser-Microtextured Surfaces-Laser-created microchannels and nano-roughness for improved bone and soft tissue attachment. vii). Nanostructured Titanium Dioxide (TiO₂) Coatings-Nanotubes/nanoparticles improving protein adsorption and osteoblast differentiation. viii). Bioactive Protein / Peptide Coatings-RGD peptides, fibronectin, or collagen coatings to promote cell adhesion. Efforts turned to biologically active coatings to speed up healing and make outcomes better in weak bones. Fluoride-modified calcium phosphate thin layers and International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17253130 1 Original Article 141 nanostructured titanium dioxide coatings improved protein adsorption and osteoblast activity. [4,12] xii). Antimicrobial Coatings (Emerging in clinical use)-Silver nanoparticles, chlorhexidine, or antimicrobial peptides to reduce peri-implantitis risk. Researchers looked into using silver nanoparticles, antimicrobial peptides, and bioactive polymers to make antimicrobial coatings that would lower the risk of peri-implantitis. These are still mostly in the early stages of research and translation. [5,6] III.Advanced Techniques / Methods of Implant Surface Coatings [13-19] A). Drug-Eluting Coatings -Local delivery of antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, or immunomodulators. Example: Gentamicin or doxycycline-loaded coatings. B). Growth Factor Functionalized Coatings -BMP-2, VEGF, or PDGF coatings to stimulate bone and vascular formation. Research progressed towards drug-releasing coatings for localized administration of antibiotics, growth factors (BMP-2), and bisphosphonates. C). Bisphosphonate-Coated Implants -Zoledronate or alendronate coatings to reduce osteoclastic activity and improve bone anchorage. D)Nanotechnology-Based Coatings -Titanium dioxide nanotubes, nanohydroxyapatite, graphene oxide, or bioactive nanocomposites for enhanced osteogenic response. Silver nanoparticles, antimicrobial peptides, or quaternary ammonium compounds integrated with bioactive layers to combat peri-implantitis. E). Zwitterionic and Hydrophilic Coatings -Smart polymers resisting protein/bacterial adhesion while improving cell compatibility. F). Layer-by-Layer (LbL) Polyelectrolyte Coatings -Tailored multilayered coatings for controlled release of drugs or bioactive molecules. G). Smart Stimuli-Responsive Coatings -Release drugs in response to pH changes, bacterial toxins, or inflammation (on-demand delivery). IV. Future Directions in Implant Surface Coatings [20-27] 1.Personalized / Patient-Specific Coatings -Tailored coatings for systemic conditions (e.g., osteoporosis, diabetes, immunocompromised patients). Example: Bisphosphonate or strontium coatings for osteoporotic patients. 2.Gene-Activated Coatings -Delivery of plasmid DNA, siRNA, or growth factor genes from the implant surface to promote site-specific tissue regeneration. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17253130 1 Original Article 142 3.Immunomodulatory Coatings -Surfaces designed to direct macrophage polarization (M1 → M2) for enhanced healing and reduced inflammation. 4.Bioinspired and Biomimetic Coatings -Mimicking natural bone extracellular matrix (collagen, peptide amphiphiles, bone sialoprotein, or osteopontin coatings). 5.Multi-Functional Smart Coatings -Combining osteogenic, angiogenic, and antimicrobial functions in a single surface layer. 6.Stimuli-Responsive / Smart Release Systems-Coatings that release drugs or growth factors in response to environmental cues like pH drop, infection markers, or mechanical stress. 7.Nanohybrids & Advanced Nanomaterials -Graphene, carbon nanotubes, or nanodiamonds incorporated with bioactive molecules for superior strength and biofunctionality. 8.3D-Printed / Additive Manufactured Coating Integration-Printing implants with in-built surface modifications and gradient coatings tailored to patient anatomy and bone density. 9.Regenerative Medicine–Integrated Coatings -Stem-cell seeding, extracellular vesicle (exosome)-based coatings, or bioactive scaffolds fused with implant surfaces. History of Implant Surface Coangs 1. The Early Era (1960s–1980s): Machined Surfaces and Plasma-Sprayed Coatings The first generation of implants (Brånemark system) had machined (turned) titanium surfaces that were not very rough and took a long time to osseointegrate. Plasma-sprayed titanium (TPS) and hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings were added to speed up the integration of bone. HA improved bone bonding, but problems with delamination and long-term stability kept it from being used widely.[9,10] 2. Development of Moderately Roughened Surfaces (1990s–2000s) The understanding that surface roughness enhances osseointegration resulted in the development of sandblasted, acid-etched (SLA), anodized titanium, and resorbable blast media (RBM) surfaces. These moderately rough surfaces showed better bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and survival rates than smooth or HA-coated implants. SLA became the gold standard, and long-term clinical trials backed this up. [3,11] 3. Bioactive and Nanostructured Coatings (2000s–2010s) Efforts turned to biologically active coatings to speed up healing and make outcomes better in weak bones. Fluoride-modified calcium phosphate thin layers and nanostructured titanium dioxide coatings improved protein adsorption and osteoblast activity. Chemically modified SLA surfaces called SLActive made surfaces more hydrophilic, which helped early osseointegration. [4,12] International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17253130 1 Original Article 143 4. Drug-Eluting & Antimicrobial Coatings (2010s–Present) Research progressed towards drug-releasing coatings for localized administration of antibiotics, growth factors (BMP-2), and bisphosphonates. Researchers looked into using silver nanoparticles, antimicrobial peptides, and bioactive polymers to make antimicrobial coatings that would lower the risk of peri-implantitis. These are still mostly in the early stages of research and translation.[5,6] 5. Future Trends (Ongoing Research, 2020s–Future) A. Smart / stimulus-responsive coatings The goal is to make coatings that can sense the environment around the implant (pH, enzymes, oxidative stress, bacterial metabolites) and only release antimicrobials, anti-inflammatories, or osteogenic factors when they are needed. Important questions: how specific the trigger is, how often it can be used, how quickly it releases, and how stable it is over time in the mouth. [13] B. Multifunctional / hybrid coatings (antimicrobial + osteoinductive) Aim: merge infection control agents (Ag, AMP, antibiotics, anti-adhesive polymers) with proosteogenic signals (Ca, Sr, BMPs, RGD peptides) on a unified, stable surface. Key questions: How can we keep the antimicrobial effect while avoiding cytotoxicity? How can we make sure that multiple agents are released at the right time and place. [14] C. Personalized / patient-tailored coatings Goal: customize coatings to fit each person's unique health needs (like osteoporosis, diabetes, longterm steroids, or immunosuppression) by giving them the right dose and agent in the right place (for example, bisphosphonate loading, anabolic factors, or immunomodulators). Important questions: biomarkers for choosing treatment, controlled dosing, and how they interact with systemic medications (risk of BRONJ). [15] D.Bisphosphonateand BP+growth factor (e.g., BMP-2) dual-functional surfaces Goal: to form and keep bone around implants by combining the antiresorptive action of local NBP with the osteoinduction of BMP-2. Key questions: what is the right dose of BMP to avoid ectopic bone/inflammation? What is the right dose of local BP to avoid necrosis? What are the long-term effects.[16] E. Nanotopography and nanoscale chemistry optimization Objective: meticulously designed nanoscale characteristics (nanotubes, nanopores, nanoroughness) that regulate protein adsorption, stem-cell destiny, immune responses, and bacterial adhesion. Important questions: which nanoscale patterns work best in the clinic; how to make them consistently; and how to sterilize them. [17] International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17253130 1 Original Article 144 F. Controlled release platforms: LbL, MOFs, polymeric matrices Goal: tunable multi-drug release (antibiotic → anti-inflammatory → growth factor) using layerby-layer, metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), or nanoporous carriers. Important questions: predictable kinetics in vivo, device stability, and classification as a drugdevice combination by regulators. [18] G. Gene / Oligonucleotide delivery from surfaces Objective: localized delivery of siRNA/miRNA or plasmids to regulate osteoblast/osteoclast activity or bacterial virulence factors in a specific area. Important questions: long-term local transfection, safety, off-target effects, and ethical and regulatory issues. [19] H. Antimicrobial nanoparticles — safety, resistance and translation Goal: make clinical coatings that are safe and last a long time out of strong in vitro Ag/Cu/Zn NP antibiofilm activity. Important questions: long-term cytotoxicity, nanoparticle release, selection of microbial resistance, and safety vs. efficacy dose limits. [20] I. Immune-instructive coatings (immunomodulation) Objective: surfaces that influence macrophage polarization (M1→M2) and local immune responses to promote regeneration and inhibit chronic inflammation. Important questions: which immunomodulatory signals work best in humans and how do they work with osteogenic agents.[21] J. Integration with additive manufacturing & porous architectures Goal: 3D-printed implant bodies with planned macro and meso porosity and surface chemistries that help share weight and let bone grow into them. Some important questions are: fatigue strength of porous implants, coating uniformity in complex geometries. [22] K. Translation pathways: sterilization, manufacturability, regulatory & long-term safety trials Goal: deal with real-world problems like the stability of sterilization, the ability to scale up, clear pipelines from preclinical to clinical, and strong RCTs with patient-centered endpoints (implant survival, peri-implantitis incidence). Important questions: how to set up pragmatic RCTs and long-term safety registries (especially for BP/BMP/NP coatings). [22] International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17253130 1 Original Article 145 L. Carbon-Based and Graphene Oxide Coatings Advanced carbon-based coatings, like diamond-like and graphene oxide, will make things stronger, more conductive, and more compatible with living things. They will also be able to be customized to fit the needs of each patient. • These materials are also being worked on for implants that can sense things in real time and keep an eye on your health. [23] M. Design and digital fabrication guided by AI • Machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) will help customize the shape, surface features, and coating therapies of implants for truly personalized treatment. • AI can improve the design of surface features to make them stronger, more attractive, and better at predicting how patients will do. [23] N. The use of biosensors together • Future implants might have built-in biosensors that keep an eye on the health of the tissue around the implant in real time, find inflammation and infection, and allow for early intervention and better results. • Biomaterials that are good for the environment and last a long time • Making biodegradable, long-lasting, and environmentally friendly materials for coatings meets the need for long-term safety and less harm to the environment. [24] O. Bisphosphonate-Coated Dental Implants: These are titanium dental implants with bisphosphonates (BPs) on their surfaces. BPs are a type of antiresorptive drug (for example, alendronate or zoledronate). Bisphosphonate-coated dental implants are designed to provide mechanical stability and local antiresorptive action to minimize bone loss. Bisphosphonates have a strong attraction to hydroxyapatite and stop osteoclasts from breaking down bone. They are meant to lower bone loss around implants, improve osseointegration, and make them more stable over time, especially in people with low bone quality or problems with their body's metabolism of bone. [25,26] P. Nitrogen-Containing Bisphosphonate (N-BP) Coated Implants: These are dental implants that have been treated with nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates like alendronate, zoledronate, risedronate, and ibandronate. N-BPs stop farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS) from working in the mevalonate pathway. This causes osteoclasts to die and has strong antiresorptive effects. This causes osteoclast apoptosis and strong antiresorptive effects.[27] International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17253130 1 Original Article 152 22. Łosiewicz B. Developments in dental implant surface modification. Coatings (Basel). 2025;15(1):109. 23. Johnson Raja James , Avina Kharat , Suresh Chinnakutti , Snehal Kamble , Mita Mandal , Anubhav Das. The Future of Dental Implants: A Narrative Review of Trends, Technologies, and Patient Considerations. Cureus 2025 Aug 18;17(8):e90380. doi: 10.7759/cureus.90380. eCollection 2025 Aug. 24.Nazrah Maher , Anum Mahmood , Muhammad Amber Fareed , Naresh Kumar , Dinesh Rokaya , Muhammad Sohail Zafar . An updated review and recent advancements in carbon-based bioactive coatings for dental implant applications. J Adv Res . 2025 Jun:72:265-286. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2024.07.016. Epub 2024 Jul 20. 25. Goodman SB, Yao Z, Keeney M, Yang F. The future of biologic coatings for orthopaedic implants. Biomaterials. 2013;34(13):3174–83. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.01.074. 26.Abtahi J, Agholme F, Sandberg O, Aspenberg P, Tengvall P. Bisphosphonate coating might improve fixation of dental implants in the maxilla: A pilot study in humans. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15(5):722–8. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00396.x. 27. Deng J, Wang W, Zhang L, Yuan M, Liu H, Xiao Y. Strategies for improving impaired osseointegration in systemic disease models: titanium surface modifications and combined therapeutics. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024; (review). doi:10.3389/fbioe.2024.xxxxx. 28.Yadav S, Nath A, Suresh R, Vasudevan AK, Balakrishnan B, Peter MR. Advances in Implant Surface Technology: A Biological Perspective. Cureus. 2025 Jan 30;17(1):e78264. 29.Esteves GM, Esteves J, Resende M, Mendes L, Azevedo AS. Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Coating of Dental Implants—Past and New Perspectives. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022 Feb 11;11(2):235. 30. Menhall A, Lahoud P, An H-W, Park K-B, Traini T, et al. Nanostructured calcium-incorporated surface compared to machined and SLA dental implants—A split-mouth randomized case/doublecontrol histological human study. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2023;13(2):357. 31.Rong M, Lu H, Wan L, Zhang X, Lin X, Li S, et al. Comparison of early osseointegration between laser-treated/acid-etched and sandblasted/acid-etched titanium implant surfaces. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2018;29(4):43. 32.Hanawa T. Recent developments in surface modification of implant materials. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2019;55(1):14–22.