Survival rates of hybrid rough surface implants and their alveolar bone level alterations

Lee, Chun‐Teh; Tran, Duc A.; Jeng, Ming Dih; Shen, Yi Tung

doi:10.1002/jper.17-0726

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Univariable analyses using the log rank test for categorical variables, and Cox regression for continuous variables, were performed for each covariate to identify its association with survival or success. 23 Hazard ratios (HR) with survival or success were further calculated for covariates with significance (P < 0.05) in the log rank test or Cox regression analysis. Covariates having the P value ≤0.25 were selected for multivariable analyses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A long‐term retrospective analysis of single tooth implants and endodontic therapies in a university setting

Lee

Preston

Tran

et al. 2022

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study aimed to compare survival of single tooth implants (SI) to teeth receiving initial endodontic treatment (IET), non‐surgical (NET), and surgical endodontic retreatments (SET). The secondary aim was to determine success rate and identify factors associated with the survival and success of implant and endodontic treatments. Methods A retrospective cohort study using electronic health records (January 1st, 1995 to April 30th, 2017) was conducted. Every case that qualified for the study in SI (n = 321), NET (n = 211), and SET (n = 79) was included and cases in IET (n = 642) were selected at random and with a 2 to 1 case ratio to SI for data extraction efficiency. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare survival rates and estimate success rates between the four groups adjusting for confounders. Results The 3 year survival rates for SI, IET, NET, and SET were 99.0%, 92.1%, 90.5%, and 89.5% while the 5 year survival rates for SI, IET, NET, and SET were 99.0%, 87.6%, 84.4%, and 81.1%, respectively. Generally, the SI group had the highest survival rate and the SET group had the lowest survival rate. Short implants (≤8 mm) were significantly associated with implant failure (P < 0.01). Teeth with composite restoration had lower survival rates in IET and NET than other restorations (P < 0.01 and < 0.01). Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, single tooth implants and the endodontic treatments yielded predictable survival and success in the short term but the survival and success rates in endodontic treatments dropped more rapidly than single tooth implants during the longer follow‐up period.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A long‐term retrospective analysis of single tooth implants and endodontic therapies in a university setting

Lee

Preston

Tran

et al. 2022

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the porous structure in the present study has possible problems, such as a higher risk of bacterial plaque accumulation, mucosal and peri-implant diseases when compared to the machined surface upon exposure to complex oral environments [34]. Hybrid surface implants have been suggested to reduce the prevalence of peri-implantitis by including the machined surface or less roughened texture in the coronal part of the implant together with the rough surface treatments in the apical part, which played important role in healing between the bone and the surface [35]. In correspondence with the rationale of the hybrid implant, the test group implant was expected to have both advantages in terms of accelerated healing and increased bone-to-implant contact by the porous structure at the apical part, and less biological complications related to the inflammation at the coronal smooth surface area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancement of Bone Ingrowth into a Porous Titanium Structure to Improve Osseointegration of Dental Implants: A Pilot Study in the Canine Model

Hong

Lee

et al. 2020

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A porous titanium structure was suggested to improve implant stability in the early healing period or in poor bone quality. This study investigated the effect of a porous structure on the osseointegration of dental implants. A total of 28 implants (14 implants in each group) were placed in the posterior mandibles of four beagle dogs at 3 months after extraction. The control group included machined surface implants with an external implant–abutment connection, whereas test group implants had a porous titanium structure added to the apical portion. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA); removal torque values (RTV); and surface topographic and histometric parameters including bone-to-implant contact length and ratio, inter-thread bone area and ratio in total, and the coronal and apical parts of the implants were measured after 4 weeks of healing. RTV showed a significant difference between the groups after 4 weeks of healing (p = 0.032), whereas no difference was observed in RFA. In the test group, surface topography showed bone tissue integrated into the porous structures. In the apical part of the test group, all the histometric parameters exhibited significant increases compared to the control group. Within the limitations of this study, enhanced bone growth into the porous structure was achieved, which consequently improved osseointegration of the implant.

show abstract

“…The machined coronal part reduces the presence of biofilm by reducing wettability and cell adhesion at this level, and the treated or roughened part favors osseointegration [ 19 ]. Hybrid implants have a high survival rate, marginal bone stability, and fewer biological complications [ 20 ]. However, animal studies have shown that implants with a hybrid surface present a degree of inflammation of the peri-implant tissues similar to that of implants with moderate roughness [ 21 ] and a greater marginal bone loss [ 22 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corrosion Resistance and Titanium Ion Release of Hybrid Dental Implants

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the strategies for the fight against peri-implantitis is the fabrication of titanium dental implants with the part close to the neck without roughness. It is well known that roughness favors osseointegration but hinders the formation of biofilm. Implants with this type of structure are called hybrid dental implants, which sacrifice better coronal osseointegration for a smooth surface that hinders bacterial colonization. In this contribution, we have studied the corrosion resistance and the release of titanium ions to the medium of smooth (L), hybrid (H), and rough (R) dental implants. All implants were identical in design. Roughness was determined with an optical interferometer and residual stresses were determined for each surface by X-ray diffraction using the Bragg–Bentano technique. Corrosion studies were carried out with a Voltalab PGZ301 potentiostat, using Hank’s solution as an electrolyte at a temperature of 37 °C. Open-circuit potentials (Eocp), corrosion potential (Ecorr), and current density (icorr) were determined. Implant surfaces were observed by JEOL 5410 scanning electron microscopy. Finally, for each of the different dental implants, the release of ions into Hank’s solution at 37 °C at 1, 7, 14, and 30 days of immersion was determined by ICP-MS. The results, as expected, show a higher roughness of R with respect to L and compressive residual stresses of −201.2 MPa and −20.2 MPa, respectively. These differences in residual stresses create a potential difference in the H implant corresponding to Eocp of −186.4 mV higher than for the L and R of −200.9 and −192.2 mV, respectively. The corrosion potentials and current intensity are also higher for the H implants (−223 mV and 0.069 μA/mm2) with respect to the L (−280 mV and 0.014 μA/mm2 and R (−273 mV and 0.019 μA/mm2). Scanning electron microscopy revealed pitting in the interface zone of the H implants and no pitting in the L and R dental implants. The titanium ion release values to the medium are higher in the R implants due to their higher specific surface area compared to the H and L implants. The maximum values obtained are low, not exceeding 6 ppb in 30 days.

show abstract

Survival rates of hybrid rough surface implants and their alveolar bone level alterations

Abstract: Hybrid rough surface implants had high survival rate, stable bone level, and low prevalence of biological complications. This surface design demonstrated promising clinical outcomes. More studies are needed to further support the clinical advantages of hybrid surface implants.

Cited by 10 publications

References 46 publications

A long‐term retrospective analysis of single tooth implants and endodontic therapies in a university setting

A long‐term retrospective analysis of single tooth implants and endodontic therapies in a university setting

Enhancement of Bone Ingrowth into a Porous Titanium Structure to Improve Osseointegration of Dental Implants: A Pilot Study in the Canine Model

Corrosion Resistance and Titanium Ion Release of Hybrid Dental Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About