Clinical evaluation of two dental implant macrostructures on peri‐implant bone loss: a comparative, retrospective study

Dagorne, Cécile; Malet, Jacques; Bizouard, Geoffray; Rangé, Hélène; Bouchard, Philippe

doi:10.1111/clr.12498

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A roughened surface does not only increase the susceptibility for peri‐implantitis, but also reduces the treatment efficacy of the bacteria biofilm . The prevalence of peri‐implantitis with a TiUnite surface is not higher than turned surface, but once there is a peri‐implantitis, the progression is increased compared to other surfaces . Hence, moderate surface modifications may improve implant therapy in terms of speeding up the treatment, but may be disadvantageous for the patients prone to peri‐implantitis .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Turned versus anodised dental implants: a meta‐analysis

Albrektsson

Wennerberg

2016

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The aim of this meta‐analysis was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, marginal bone loss (MBL)and post‐operative infection for patients being rehabilitated by turned versus anodised‐surface implants, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in November 2015. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomised or not. Thirty‐eight publications were included. The results suggest a risk ratio of 2·82 (95% CI 1·95–4·06, P < 0·00001) for failure of turned implants, when compared to anodised‐surface implants. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results when only the studies inserting implants in maxillae or mandibles were pooled. There were no statistically significant effects of turned implants on the MBL (mean difference‐MD 0·02, 95%CI −0·16–0·20; P = 0·82) in comparison to anodised implants. The results of a meta‐regression considering the follow‐up period as a covariate suggested an increase of the MD with the increase in the follow‐up time (MD increase 0·012 mm year−1), however, without a statistical significance (P = 0·813). Due to lack of satisfactory information, meta‐analysis for the outcome ‘post‐operative infection’ was not performed. The results have to be interpreted with caution due to the presence of several confounding factors in the included studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Turned versus anodised dental implants: a meta‐analysis

Albrektsson

Wennerberg

2016

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implants in the DIO group were conical, while they were cylindrical in the ITI group. The cylindrical form of the implant body is designed to increase the initial stability of implant [19]. Initial stability is typically measured by the force required to place the implant [19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The cylindrical form of the implant body is designed to increase the initial stability of implant [19]. Initial stability is typically measured by the force required to place the implant [19]. According to Grandi et al, [20] high force in implant placement has no effect on osseointegration or bone loss prevention in two implants with identical design, and it also seems ineffective on crestal bone loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiographic Comparison of Crestal Bone Loss Around Two Implant Systems with Different Surface Roughness: A Retrospective Study

Pourheidary

Shayegh

Shahab

et al. 2019

J Islam Dent Assoc Iran

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: This retrospective study aimed to investigate the effects of surface roughness and implant body design on the amount of crestal bone loss around implant. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, dental records of 87 patients who received 139 implants were evaluated. The ITI group received 63 implants with moderate roughness, while the DIO group received 76 implants with hybrid roughness. Radiographs were taken immediately after implant placement, on the day of loading of the prosthesis, and 1 and 2 years after loading by using the parallel method. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare bone loss in the two groups at different time points, and the Wilcoxon test was used to evaluate the intra-group variations during a period of 1-2 years after applying the force (P=0.05). Results: Radiographic records of 23 implants (16%) were unavailable during the second year. The ITI group had more bone loss at all three time points. Marginal bone loss in the ITI group during the second year was 0.65±0.44 mm and was significantly more than that in the DIO group (0.28±0.16 mm; P<0.05). The mean bone loss during the time interval of the first to the second year was significantly less than the bone loss during the time interval of loading to the first year (P<0.05) in both groups. Conclusion: Based on the failure criteria, none of the implants failed after 2 years of loading. Implants with hybrid surface roughness were superior in preserving the marginal bone around implants against occlusal forces.

show abstract

“…Many of these studies have been performed with different dental implant macro-designs, lengths, diameters, thread depths, thread spacing, micro-threads, and other geometrical aspects of dental implants [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Conical or cylindrical implant shapes and the use of platform switching have also been studied, and in all cases, the authors determined the mechanical load transfer to the bone [ 11 , 12 ]. Different studies have reported a positive correlation between roughness and osseointegration, using machined surfaces as controls [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of the Influence of Roughness and Dental Implant Design on Primary Stability via Analysis of Insertion Torque and Implant Stability Quotient: An In Vitro Study

Romero

Herrero-Climent

Ríos-Carrasco

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the placement of dental implants, the primary fixation between the dental implant and the bone is of great importance and corresponds to compressive mechanical fixation that aims to prevent micromovement of the implant. The aim of this research was to determine the role of roughness and the type of dental implant (tissue-level or bone-level) in implant stability, measured using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and insertion torque (IT). We analyzed 234 titanium dental implants, placed in fresh calf ribs, at the half-tissue level and half-bone level. The implant surface was subjected to grit-blasting treatments with alumina particles of 120, 300, and 600 μm at a projection pressure of 2.5 bar, resulting in three types of roughness. Roughness was determined via optical interferometry. The wettability of the surfaces was also determined. Implant stability was measured using a high-precision torquemeter to obtain IT, and RFA was used to determine the implant stability quotient (ISQ). The results show that rough surfaces with Sa values of 0.5 to 4 μm do not affect the primary stability. However, the type of implant is important; bone-level implants obtained the highest primary stability values. A good correlation between the primary stability values obtained via IT and ISQ was demonstrated. New in vivo studies are necessary to know whether these results can be maintained in the long term.

show abstract

Clinical evaluation of two dental implant macrostructures on peri‐implant bone loss: a comparative, retrospective study

Abstract: Our study demonstrates a significant difference in peri-implant bone level between test and control groups. The mean bone level at baseline, the type of periodontal therapy, and the maintenance program may explain peri-implant bone level changes overtime.

Cited by 6 publications

References 18 publications

Turned versus anodised dental implants: a meta‐analysis

Turned versus anodised dental implants: a meta‐analysis

Radiographic Comparison of Crestal Bone Loss Around Two Implant Systems with Different Surface Roughness: A Retrospective Study

Investigation of the Influence of Roughness and Dental Implant Design on Primary Stability via Analysis of Insertion Torque and Implant Stability Quotient: An In Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About