Sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched surface
Also known as: SLA-type surface, SLA surface, Blasted and acid-etched surface, Sandblasted and acid-etched
A family of implant surfaces produced by blasting the titanium with a coarse abrasive to create a macro-roughness, then etching it in acid so that a finer micro-roughness is superimposed on top.
Key facts
| Production process | Coarse-grit blasting followed by acid etching. In one published description of a commercial example, alumina particles of 250-500 micrometres are blasted onto the surface and the implant is then etched in hydrochloric and sulphuric acid.Verified spec[2]Grit size, abrasive medium and acid concentrations differ between manufacturers and are usually treated as proprietary. This figure describes one system, not the whole category. |
|---|---|
| Surface category | Roughness classification (Wennerberg & Albrektsson 2009): smooth Sa below 0.5 micrometres; minimally rough Sa 0.5-1 micrometres; moderately rough Sa above 1 up to 2 micrometres; rough Sa above 2 micrometres.Verified spec[3] |
| Surface roughness | Straumann states that its SLA surface is a moderately rough surface with an Sa value of about 1.5 micrometres.Manufacturer-reported[1]This is one manufacturer’s figure for its own product; it should not be read as a value for the whole category. |
| Geographic availability | Blasted-and-etched surfaces are the most common surface family in implant dentistry. Straumann SLA, Osstem SA, CAMLOG Promote, BEGO TiPurePlus and Neodent NeoPoros are all members, and the hydrophilic surfaces (SLActive, CA, Acqua) are chemical modifications applied to a surface of this type. |
Overview
Almost every implant a UK patient is likely to be offered carries a surface from this family, so being told an implant is "sandblasted and acid-etched" narrows things down far less than it sounds. The two steps do different jobs: blasting with coarse grit cuts a relatively deep, irregular texture, and the acid bath then eats a much finer pattern into that texture, giving a surface that is rough at two scales at once. Where manufacturers actually differ is in the detail they do not publish - grit size and material, acid mixture, temperature and time - and in what they do afterwards. That last point is the one worth holding on to: the hydrophilic surfaces marketed as premium options are not different topographies, they are this same blasted-and-etched topography with a chemical or storage step added. A comparison between two implants on the basis that both are "SLA" is therefore comparing very little.
Sources
Numbers match the citations beside each claim above.
Primary sources
- [1]Scientific Review for Straumann SLA implant surface (490.010) — Institut Straumann AG, 2014. Accessed 2026-07-21.
Clinical evidence
- [2]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.
- [3]Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review — Clinical Oral Implants Research (PubMed record), 2009. Accessed 2026-07-21.