A multicenter prospective evaluation of 2‐months loaded Osseotite^® implants placed in the posterior jaws: 3‐year follow‐up results

Abstract

In this prospective study, the clinical outcome of 2-months loaded implants placed in the posterior jaws was evaluated after up to 3 years of functional loading. 405 Osseotite implants with microtextured acid-etched surface were consecutively placed in 11 fully and 164 partially edentulous patients (mean age 53.5 +/- 15.3 (S.D.) years) using a one-stage technique. 282 implants, supporting 154 restorations, were placed in the mandible, while 123 implants, supporting 75 restorations, were placed in the maxilla. A total of 99 single-tooth restorations, 119 short-span fixed bridges and 11 full-arch prostheses were applied. The mean time interval from surgery to connection of provisional restoration was 2.0 +/- 0.7 months. 9 failures were reported up to 3 years of follow-up; of these, 4 mandibular and 2 maxillary implants failed during the initial healing period (before prosthesis connection), while 3 mandibular implants failed after loading. No other complications occurred throughout the study. Life table analysis showed a cumulative survival rate of 97.5% for the mandible and 98.4% for the maxilla. Post-loading implant survival rate was 98.9% for the mandible and 100% for the maxilla. The excellent outcome of this interim report suggests that microtextured Osseotite implants in the posterior jaws may safely bear a functional load applied 2 months after insertion. The results of the present study are particularly encouraging for implants placed in the maxilla, since both a significant reduction of the healing period compared to the 6 months suggested by the classical Brånemark protocol, and an excellent post-loading function may be achieved also in low quality bone.

Biological properties of acid etched titanium implants: Effect of sandblasting on bone anchorage

“…After 3 months of healing, a fourfold increase was recorded for the etched implants. Clinically, Testori et al 33,34 pointed out that short implants with the Osseotite surface were more predictable than short implants with the machined surface of identical design; the failure rate of short and long Osseotite implants was similar. Subsequently, the aforementioned studies suggest that a strong implant anchorage may have clinical relevance.…”

“…Nonetheless, despite the higher anchorage of the SLA implant over the Osseotite one, 14 both implants have been documented to ensure an equivalent reliability for short dental implants. [32][33][34][35][36] . It might be that a threshold anchorage, which remains to be determined, is required to ensure a high predictability for short implants and that a marginal increase over this value has no clinical relevance with this regard.…”

Meta-analysis on the survival of short implants

“…Years ago, these lengths were considered to be inadequate, especially in the maxilla, due to the qualitative characteristics of the bone at this level, which required a minimum availability of 13 mm from the alveolar ridge to the anatomical structures that outline the apical limit for the maxilla, and 10 mm in the case of the mandible. The development of new surface treatments and new implant designs appears to have made it possible to overcome these limitations, as is the case of rough-surface implants, which end up reducing the total length of the implant because there is more contact with the surface of the implant due to the roughness of its surface (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21). It is clear that the possibility of using short implants nowadays in order to achieve success rates similar to that of longer implants would be a great advantage, given that it would enable avoiding the prior preparation of the receiving area by means of more invasive surgical techniques.…”

Effect of maxillary sinus graft on the survival of endosseous implants: A 10-year retrospective study

“…These phenomena lead to a more favorable implant-bone interface compared to distance osteogenesis. Thus the osteoconductive nature of a rough implant surface may increase the rate at which bone forms on the implant surface, thereby allowing a reduction of the time interval between implant placement and functional loading 33) .…”