Prospective randomized clinical trial of hydrophilic tapered implant placement at maxillary posterior area: 6 weeks and 12 weeks loading

Abstract

PURPOSEEarly loading of implant can be determined by excellent primary stability and characteristic of implant surface. The implant system with recently improved surface can have load application 4-6 weeks after installing in maxilla and mandible. This study evaluated the effect of healing period to the stability of hydrophilic tapered-type implant at maxillary posterior area.MATERIALS AND METHODSThis study included 30 patients treated by hydrophilic tapered-type implants (total 41 implants at maxilla) and classified by two groups depending on healing period. Group 1 (11 patients, 15 implants) was a control group and the healing period was 12 weeks, and Group 2 (19 patients, 26 implants) was test group and the healing period was 6 weeks. Immediately after implant placement, at the first impression taking, implant stability was measured using Osstell Mentor. The patients also took periapical radiographs after restoration delivery, 12 months after restoration and final followup period. The marginal bone loss around the implants was measured using the periapical radiographs.RESULTSAll implants were survived and success rate was 97.56%. The marginal bone loss was less than 1mm after 1 year postoperatively except the one implant. The stabilities of the implants were not correlated with age, healing period until loading, insertion torque (IT), the diameter of fixture and the location of implant. Only the quality of bone in group 2 (6 week) was correlated with the stability of implant.CONCLUSIONHealing period of 6 weeks can make the similar clinical prognosis of implants to that of healing period of 12 weeks if bone quality is carefully considered in case of early loading.

Accelerated Healing Period with Hydrophilic Implant Placed in Sheep Tibia

“…The patients also took periapical radiographs after final restoration, 6 and 12 months after restoration and final follow up period. The authors concluded that the period of 6 weeks can make the similar clinical prognosis of implants to that of healing period of 12 weeks and after 12 months all implants survived and the success rate was 97.56% (24).…”

Comparison of sandblasted and acid-etched surface implants and new hydrophilic surface implants in the posterior maxilla using a 3-month early-loading protocol: a randomized controlled trial

“…The results of this study are in agreement with one-year follow-up studies on implants placed in the maxillary posterior region using an early loading protocol. Kim et al 35 reported a 97.0% one-year implant success rate in the maxillary posterior area after a 3-month loading period. Kim et al 36 also indicated a one-year success rate of 97.56% by applying a loading protocol between 6 and 12 weeks to an implant placed in the posterior edentulous part of the maxilla.…”

The long-term evaluation of the prognosis of implants with acid-etched surfaces sandblasted with alumina: a retrospective clinical study

“…Elkhaweldi et al reported that the survival rate of RBM surfacetreated implants was 95.2%, but the survival rate of SLA surface-treated implants was higher than 99.1% [10]. Using this SLA surface treatment method, Osstem (Busan, Korea) developed implants with SA surfaces that were subjected to sandblasting and acid etching using alumina, but more long-term observational studies on the implants are necessary [11][12][13].…”