Effect of loading time on marginal bone loss around hydroxyapatite-coated implants

Abstract

ObjectivesThe objective of this study is compare the rate of marginal bone resorption around hydroxyapatite-coated implants given different loading times in order to evaluate their stability.Materials and MethodsThe study was conducted retrospectively for one year, targeting 41 patients whose treatment areas were the posterior maxilla and the mandible. Osstem TS III HA (Osstem Implant Co., Busan, Korea) and Zimmer TSV-HA (Zimmer Dental, Carlsbad, CA, USA), which employ the new hydroxyapatite coating technique, were used. The patients were divided into two groups - immediate and delayed loading - and the bone level at the time of loading commencement and after one year of loading was measured using periapical radiography. Differences between the groups were evaluated using Mann-Whitney (α=0.05).ResultsFor all patients as a single group, the survival rate of the implants was 100%, and the mean marginal bone loss was 0.26±0.59 mm. In comparison of the differences by loading, mean marginal bone loss of 0.32±0.69 mm was recorded for the immediate loading group whereas the delayed loading group had mean marginal bone loss of 0.16±0.42 mm. However, the difference was not significant (P>0.05).ConclusionWithin the limited observation period of one year, predictable survival rates can be expected when using immediately loaded hydroxyapatite-coated implants.

Crestal Bone Level Changes Around Immediately Placed Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analyses With at Least 12 Months’ Follow‐Up After Functional Loading

“…Although primary implant stability is a major determining factor in IIP success, several other factors are important in determining crestal bone level (CBL) changes around IIP. These factors may include platform switching (PS), 16 time of loading, [17][18][19][20] one-or two-stage placement, 21,22 number of remaining bony walls postextraction, 23,24 the gap between implant and buccal bone, and the need for bone augmentation. 25,26 Marginal CBL changes around delayed implants are reported to be greatest during the first year of function (1.0 to 1.5 mm) followed by an annual rate of 0.1 to 0.2 mm.…”

Randomized controlled clinical trial of 2 types of hydroxyapatite-coated implants on moderate periodontitis patients

“…If excessive loading on implant fixtures occurs during this period, the equilibrium between bone generation and bone resorption can be broken, resulting in the formation of fibrous connective tissue that could interfere with osseointegration. If the marginal bones are resorbed in the bone-implant interface, the stability of surrounding tissues could be compromised, and eventually peri-implantitis could develop [23]. …”

“…This would ultimately provide better implant stability since the occlusal forces are more concentrated on the crest module and apex of the implant. Insufficient stability resulting from shedding of the HA coating and irregular coating thickness has been addressed with technological advancements such as the ion plating and sputtering technique, the thermal decomposition method, and biomimetic processes [23]. Advancements in HA-coating technology could progressively resolve its inherent problems and lead to stable long-term clinical results.…”

Rationale for Dental Implants

“…Ceramics can be seen as the entire implant or as a surface modification to the metal implant body. Common forms of coatings are hydroxyapatite, tricalcium phosphate or a form of bioglass [37][38][39]. The possibility of surface degradation, especially with hydroxyapatite, has been an area of contention with many pointing to this element when adverse implant to bone interactions occur.…”