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

Abstract

Objectives: In this prospective randomized controlled trial, we measured the primary and secondary stability of two surface-treated implants placed in the posterior maxilla, applied 3-month loading protocols, and compared and analyzed the short-term outcomes of the implants. Patients and Methods: From June 2018 to June 2019, patients with a residual bone height of 4 mm in the posterior maxilla were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups to place SA implants (Osstem Implants, Korea) in Group A and NH implants (Hiossen, USA) in Group B. Finally, 14 implants placed in 13 patients in Group A and 17 implants placed in 14 patients in Group B were analyzed. The measured primary and secondary stability of each implant was represented by implant stability quotient (ISQ), and treatment outcomes were evaluated. Results: Group A consisted of patients with an average age of 62.2 years (range, 48-80 years), and Group B consisted of patients with an average age of 58.1 years (range, 35-82 years). Primary stability was 73.86±6.40 and 71.24±5.32 in Groups A and B, respectively (P=0.222). Secondary stability was 79.07±5.21 in Group A and 78.29±4.74 in Group B (P=0.667). A steep increase in ISQ during the healing period was observed in Group B, though it was not significant (P=0.265). The mean follow-up period was 378.5±164.6 days in Group A and 385.3±167.9 days in Group B. All implants in each group met the success criteria, and the success rate was 100%. Conclusion: Two surface-treated implants placed in the posterior maxilla with greater than 4 mm alveolar bone height exhibited successful one-year treatment outcomes if a primary stability of 65 or higher ISQ was obtained and a 3-month early loading protocol was applied.

Surface structure characteristics of dental implants and their potential changes following installation: a literature review

“…Protein adsorption is responsible for the cells’ capacity to bind more strongly to a hydrophilic implant surface than to a hydrophobic surface 12 . Implants with a dual surface and enhanced hydrophilicity were comparable to those with SLA surfaces in short-term osseointegration 39 .…”

Implant Survival in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Case Report and Systematic Review of the Literature

“…This relationship of a mechanical nature is over time superseded by a subsequent stability of a biological nature, or secondary stability, determined instead by the neoformation of bone at the interface and coils of the implant that dynamically support its long-term maintenance and sustain functional loads [12,13]. Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder 2 of 19 (CDK-MDB) is a bone disease (known as renal osteodystrophy) caused by deficits in bone mineralization and is a direct result of electrolyte and hormonal imbalance [14]. It is a complication of chronic renal failure that evolves into a systemic dysfunction of bone and mineral metabolism, including: biological serum abnormalities and mineral abnormalities, hyperphosphatemia, reduced serum vitamin D (VIT.…”

“…Bone remodeling is a lifelong process in which mature bone is replaced by remodeling into new bone tissue [17]. In adults, as remodeling proceeds, about 10% of bone tissue is replaced per year [13,14]. An imbalance in the regulation of either of the two subprocesses of bone remodeling results in CDK-MBD [14].…”

“…In adults, as remodeling proceeds, about 10% of bone tissue is replaced per year [13,14]. An imbalance in the regulation of either of the two subprocesses of bone remodeling results in CDK-MBD [14]. Assessment of bone turnover is the most important diagnostic means of monitoring the progression of CDK-MBD [14].…”

Manufacture of titanium alloy materials with bioactive sandblasted surfaces and evaluation of osseointegration properties

“…Good osseointegration, which refers to the direct structural and functional connection between bone and material surface, is considered to be the most important prerequisite of successful implantation ( Kim et al, 2021 ). Good osseointegration properties of the implant material are necessary factors for achieving osseointegration, such as bioactivity and osteoinductivity.…”