This paper describes the 5-year results of a comparative study between Astra Tech and Brånemark system implants. The aim was to compare the systems primarily with regard to bone level changes, and also with regard to other variables of interest. Sixty-six patients with edentulous jaws were included in the study. Randomisation schedules were used to allocate the patients to the two implant systems. 184 Astra Tech implants with a titanium-blasted surface and 187 Brånemark implants with a turned surface were used. The implants were inserted with a two-stage technique and the insertion followed the routines for the respective implant system. All patients were provided with full-arch fixed bridges. All patients were followed up with clinical and radiographic examinations from fixture insertion to the 5-year follow-up. The total mean bone level change in the upper jaw between fixture insertion and the 5-year examination was -1.74+/-0.45 mm at the Astra implants and -1.98+/-0.21 at the Brånemark implants. The corresponding values for the lower jaw were -1.06+/-0.19 for Astra and -1.38+/-0.17 for Brånemark. The major postoperative changes of the marginal bone level took place between fixture insertion and baseline. During this period, there was also a different pattern of bone remodelling between the implant systems. Between baseline (prosthesis connection) and the 5-year examination, the marginal bone level changes were small, with no difference between the implant systems. The implant stability was examined with the supraconstructions removed. At the 5-year examination, the survival rate for Astra Tech implants was 98.4% and for the Brånemark implants it was 94.6%. The difference was not statistically significant.

No statistically significant differences were found between the implants studied, except for the frequency of periimplantitis, which was higher for the ITI implants. The survival rates were high, and the marginal bone loss was small for both systems.

Early loading seemed to give good results in the anterior part of the mandible. The survival rate of the early-loaded implants did not significantly differ from that of implants inserted with the conventional two-stage procedure, but the mean marginal bone loss around the surviving implants was less with early loading.

Abutment connection with Astra Tech implants was simpler than the corresponding surgery with Brånemark System implants and the survival rate of Astra Tech implants was higher than that of Brånemark system implants.

Fourteen Swedish teams outside the University of Gothenburg, each with minimally three years' experience in the Nobelpharma osseointegrated implant participated in a retrospective multiclinic study. The total number of consecutively inserted implants at the 14 clinics was 8139. The outcome of every implant was reported and all implant failures, irrespective of when they occurred, were published. The success criteria included absence of implant mobility, absence of radiolucent zones on x-rays, and an annual bone loss after the first year of less than 0.2 mm. In the mandible 334 implants were followed for five to eight years, with only three failures, for a success rate of 99.1%. In the maxilla 106 implants were followed for five to seven years, with a success rate of 84.9%. In irradiated and grafted mandibles, 56 implants were inserted and none was lost during a follow-up of up to five years. In the irradiated maxilla there were 16 implants inserted with three reported failures and in the grafted upper jaw 71 implants were inserted with 12 failures. The proportions of mandibular and maxillary sleeping implants were 0.8 and 0.3%, of patient drop-out implants 0.3 and 0.6%, and of patient death implants 0.9 and 1.2%, respectively. It was concluded that the osseointegrated implant, if inserted according to the guidelines of Brånemark, results in a very high degree of clinical success, thereby meeting any published oral implant success criteria.