A 3-year prospective radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around different implant systems

• Published in: Journal of oral rehabilitation Vol. 37; no. 7; pp. 538 - 544
• Main Authors: LEE, S.Y., PIAO, C.M., KOAK, J.Y., KIM, S.K., KIM, Y.S., KU, Y., RHYU, I.C., HAN, C.H., HEO, S.J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.07.2010
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Alveolar Bone Loss - classification; Alveolar Bone Loss - diagnostic imaging; Alveolar Process - diagnostic imaging; Calcium Phosphates - chemistry; Coated Materials, Biocompatible - chemistry; Dental Abutments; Dental Etching; dental implant; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental Implants - classification; Dental Materials - chemistry; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dentistry; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Mandible - surgery; marginal bone level; Maxilla - surgery; microthread; Middle Aged; Osseointegration - physiology; Prospective Studies; radiographic evaluation; Radiography; Sex Factors; Surface Properties; Titanium - chemistry
• ISSN: 0305-182X; 1365-2842
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02083.x

Summary  The aim of this study was to evaluate the change of marginal bone level radiographically around three different implant systems after 3 years in function. Fifty‐four patients were included and randomly assigned to three treatment groups of rough‐surface implants (TiUnite, n = 37), hybrid of smooth and rough‐surface implants (Restore, n = 38) and rough surface with microthread implants (Hexplant, n = 45). Clinical and radiographic examinations were conducted at the time of implant loading (baseline), 1 and 3 years after loading. A three‐level mixed‐effect analysis of covariance (ancova) was used to test the significance of the mean marginal bone change of the three implant groups. A total 120 of 135 implants completed the study. None of the implants failed to integrate. Significant differences were noted in the marginal bone loss recorded for the three groups (P < 0·0001). At 3 years, the rough surface with microthread implants had a mean crestal bone loss of 0·59 ± 0·30 mm; the rough‐surface implants, 0·95 ± 0·27 mm; and the hybrid surface implants, 1·05 ± 0·34 mm. Within the limitations of this study, rough‐surface implants with microthread at the coronal part might have a long‐term positive effect in maintaining the marginal bone level against functional loading in comparison with implants without these two features.