Retrospective Multivariate Clinical Analysis of 2707 Dental Implants with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Surfaces: Survival Rates after Up to 5 Years

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the long-term predictability of treatment using implants with hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces, according to clinical parameters and survival rates. Records from all patients who received dental implants between January 2013 and December 2014 at ILAPEO College were fully evaluated by two graduate dentists. Records with incomplete or unclear data were excluded from the study. The variables evaluated were demographic data, design of implants and prosthetic components, type of loading, data related to the patients' general health, and survival of implants and prostheses. The final retrospective sample comprised 776 patients with 2707 implants, with up to 5 years of follow-up. Survival rates of implants and prostheses were 97.93% and 98.77%, respectively. Implants with hydrophobic (97.87%) and hydrophilic (98.34%) surfaces exhibited similar survival rates. Considering the different types of loading, there was no statistically significant difference between loading protocols regarding implant survival rates. Unsuitable healing capacity, uncooperative and not motivated patient, loss of prosthesis, and peri-implant bone loss were confirmed statistically to be factors that may contribute to implant loss, according to hazard ratio and odds ratio. The present study showed similar and high overall survival rates for implant with both types of surfaces, in the long term. The surface treatment, implant model and loading protocol had no significant influence on implant loss. Therefore, the evaluated implant systems were able to offer a high predictability for both hydrophobic and hydrophilic implants.

Boosting Titanium Surfaces with Positive Charges: Newly Developed Cationic Coating Combines Anticorrosive and Bactericidal Properties for Implant Application

“…In addition, hydrophilic surfaces aid in cell sedimentation, adhesion, and proliferation . In contrast, our hydrophobic surface also had the ability to adhere to preosteoblastic cells, similar to what was seen by Jamcoski et al., 2022 . Also, because hydrophobic surfaces are ionically charged, the electrostatic interaction aids physical cell adhesion.…”

“…In addition, this hydrophobic characteristic produces less hydrolytic effects because of the silane presence, allowing the chemical bond (Ti–O–Si) not to be displaced but the bond strength to be increased, obtaining less hydrolysis . Finally, even if this treatment has a hydrophobic character, and this characteristic can interfere with the biological response, studies show that surfaces with hydrophobicity can present good biological results, as seen in a previous in vivo study . Furthermore, this biological response can be enhanced by the presence of the amine in APTES, facilitating cell adhesion …”

“…67 Finally, even if this treatment has a hydrophobic character, and this characteristic can interfere with the biological response, studies show that surfaces with hydrophobicity can present good biological results, as seen in a previous in vivo study. 68 Furthermore, this biological response can be enhanced by the presence of the amine in APTES, facilitating cell adhesion. 25…”

“…84 In contrast, our hydrophobic surface also had the ability to adhere to preosteoblastic cells, similar to what was seen by Jamcoski et al, 2022. 68 Also, because hydrophobic surfaces are ionically charged, the electrostatic interaction aids physical cell adhesion. Still, our hydrophobic coating also contains amine from the APTES, and its presence can potentiate biological response through its ability to bind to cell receptors, aiding in cell formation and functional structuring.…”

2-years retrospective observational case-control study on survival and marginal bone loss of implants in patients with hereditary coagulopathies

“…Being a retrospective observational study, the radiographic material existing was limited to the radiographies taken at the time of the surgery, and 3 months later, when the prosthesis was loaded. It is noTable that in this study, in the measurements taken after 2 years, 94.6% of implants of the hereditary coagulopathies group had less than 1/3 marginal bone loss (Level 1), similar to that of the healthy control group (92.3%), in both cases similar to the average (93.6%) and to what has been described in other studies on healthy patients ( 17 ).…”