Surface concept evolution

Learn about the Acqua technology, developed to facilitate your work and enhance clinical results

Acqua: the innovative surface featuring increased wettability

Wettability is an important component to the accessibility of an implant surface for aqueous biologic liquids like blood. Wettability plays a role that is especially clear when the interactions between hydrophilicity and characteristics like topographical and roughness are considered.(1). The wettability characteristic is assessed by the contact angle of a drop of liquid on the surface of the implant.(1,2)

If you compare hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces, a differentiated cascade of initial interfacial stresses is expected.(1)

How is Acqua’s surface hydrophilicity obtained?

The titanium oxide layer over an implant surface is usually electronegative. The consequences of this particular characteristic is to reduce the contact between implant surface and blood, that is also electronegative. Hydrophilic-surfaced implants are characterized by the titanium oxide electro-positivity layer. The physical-chemical activation of the Acqua surface changes the negatively charged surface into positive, atracting ions from the blood improving the contact as proved in in vitro studies.(1,3)

Lab generated image

An innovative surface designed for successful osseointegration.(4,5)

In vitro analyses have shown that the surface chemical activation and the microtopography contribute to the performance of the implant surface.(6)
These characteristics are microscopically controlled by state-of-the-art equipment which characterize the appropriate roughness levels for successful osseointegration.

Higher bone to implant contact and acceleration of the bone regeneration.(7)

Hydrophilicity results in increased contact between the proteins in blood and the implant, making the beginning of the bone regeneration process effective.(4,8,9) Pre-clinical study (7) in rabbit tibias performed with Acqua implants suggests improved BIC of 52,8% in 28 days
of osseointegration compared to hydrophobic surface implants.

Bone regeneration in association with biomaterials.(5)

A reduced bone bed may result in a fenestration around newly placed implants, resulting in exposed threads and the need to use graft materials for augmentation. Using implants featuring the Acqua surface treatment in these critical situations may result in the increase of
bone apposition, and further increase in BIC, when compared to hydrophobic sufaces.(5)

  • Dr. José Augusto Isaac Ribeiro CRO 7764 - Brasília/DF

    “The Acqua surface adds value to implants, an extra benefit and a plus to offer my clients. I use it in several situations, and the packaging is much easier to store now.”

  • Dr. Renato Lins Marques CRO 25026 – Uberaba/MG

    “The new packaging, besides making it easier to identify the model, the diameter and length of the implant, is more convenient and safe in the capture and transport during the surgeries. The locking of the implant in the surgical alveolus is always great.

Acqua: reliability and confidence in your hands

Global Catalogue

2020 Neodent Product Catalog

USLIT 2040 30.06.2020 PDF, 14 MB Download
See all resources...


1. Rupp F, Scheideler L, Eichler M, Geis-Gerstorfer J.Wetting behavior of dental implants.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Nov-Dec; 26(6):1256-66.

2. Bico J, Thiele U, Quéré D. Wetting of textured surfaces. A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 206 (2002) 41–46.

3. Gittens RA, Olivares-Navarrete R, Tannenbaum R,Boyan BD, Schwartz Z. Electrical implications of corrosion for osseointegration of titanium implants. J Dent Res. 2011 Dec; 90(12): 1389-97.

4. Mendonça G, Mendonça BD, Oliveira SL, Araujo AC. Efeitos da diferenciação de células-tronco mesenquimais humanas sobre superfícies de implantes hidrofílicas. In: Implant News, v. 10, n. 6a | PBA | Novembro/Dezembro 2013 ISSN 1678-6661 [111-116].

5. da Silveira BM. Análises omográfica, microtomográfica e histológica entre enxertos em bloco autógeno e xenógeno nas reconstruções ósseas de maxila.Dissertação mestrado ILAPEO. 2013.133 pg.

6. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 1—review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont. 2004 Sep-Oct; 17(5): 536-43.

7. Rupp F, Scheideler L, Olshanska N, de Wild M, Wieland M, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Enhancing surface free energy and hydrophilicity through chemical modification of microstructured titanium implant surfaces. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research A, 76(2): 323-334, 2006.

8. Kloss FR, Steinmüller-Nethl D, Stigler G, Ennemoser T, Rasse M, Hächl O. In vivo investigation on connective tissue healing to polished surfaces with different surface wettability. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Jul; 22(7): 699-705.

9. Borges AF, Dias Pereira LA, Thomé G, Melo AC de Mattias Sartori IA. Prostheses removal for suture removal after immediate load: success of implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010 Sep; 12(3): 244-8.

10. Faot F, Hermann C, Sartori EM, Bassi AP. Tilted implants and prototyping: a security option for improving the anchorage in atrophic maxilla. Gen Dent. 2013 Mar-Apr; 61(2): 28-31.

11. Lee HJ1, Aparecida de Mattias Sartori I, Alcântara PR, et al. Implant stability measurements of two immediate loading protocols for the edentulous mandible: rigid and semi-rigid splinting of the implants. Implant Dent. 2012 Dec; 21(6): 486-90.