Osstem CA surface
Also known as: CA surface, Osstem CA, Calcium-modified sandblasted acid-etched surface
Osstem’s hydrophilic implant surface: the same sandblasted and acid-etched topography as its SA surface, stored in calcium chloride solution so that the surface stays wettable until placement.
Key facts
| Manufacturer | Osstem Implant, Busan, KoreaVerified spec[1] |
|---|---|
| Production process | Prepared by sandblasting with 250-500 micrometre alumina grit and acid etching in hydrochloric and sulphuric acid, then stored in calcium chloride solution.Verified spec[1] |
| Predecessor system | Topographically identical to the Osstem SA surface; the published difference is the calcium chloride storage, described as preventing carbon adsorption on the titanium, improving wettability and increasing protein adhesion during early osseointegration.Verified spec[1] |
| Clinical evidence | A retrospective clinical study of 258 CA implants in 120 patients, followed for a mean of 62 months, reported a 97.3 per cent survival rate, a 94.2 per cent success rate and mean final marginal bone loss of 0.074 mm.Verified spec[1]A single-centre retrospective study without a randomised comparator, so it describes outcomes in one cohort rather than establishing superiority over the SA surface. |
| Surface roughness | Manufacturer documentation not located(We did not reach an Osstem document giving an Sa value; the peer-reviewed source describes the process but not the resulting roughness.) |
Overview
Osstem markets two closely related surfaces whose names sit one letter apart, and the difference between them is easy to misread. SA is a conventional sandblasted and acid-etched surface. CA is the same surface with the same topography, kept in calcium chloride solution rather than dry, so that it reaches the surgery wettable rather than having accumulated the airborne carbon that makes stored titanium water-repellent. The mechanism is essentially the one behind every hydrophilic surface on the market, arrived at by a different route from Straumann’s or Neodent’s. What is genuinely useful here is that the description comes from peer-reviewed literature rather than from a brochure, including the grit size and acids, which most manufacturers withhold. The clinical figures attached to it come from a retrospective single-cohort study, which tells you how one group of CA implants performed but not whether they performed better than SA implants would have.
Sources
Numbers match the citations beside each claim above.
Clinical evidence
- [1]Long-term evaluation of the prognosis of super hydrophilic surface treated CA implants: a retrospective clinical study — BMC Oral Health, via PubMed Central, 2022. Accessed 2026-07-21.