Marginal bone loss around three different implant systems: radiographic evaluation after 1 year

• Published in: Journal of oral rehabilitation Vol. 36; no. 10; pp. 748 - 754
• Main Authors: PIAO, C. M., LEE, J. E., KOAK, J. Y., KIM, S. K., RHYU, I. C., HAN, C. H., HERR, Y., HEO, S. J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.10.2009
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Alveolar Bone Loss - diagnostic imaging; Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery; Alveolar Process - diagnostic imaging; Alveolar Process - surgery; Analysis of Variance; Coated Materials, Biocompatible - chemistry; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; dental implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Dentistry; Female; Humans; Male; Mandible - diagnostic imaging; Mandible - surgery; marginal bone level; Maxilla - diagnostic imaging; Maxilla - surgery; microthreads; Middle Aged; Osseointegration - physiology; radiographic evaluation; Radiography; rough surface; Surface Properties
• ISSN: 0305-182X; 1365-2842
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01988.x

Summary  This study was designed to radiographically evaluate the effect of surface macro‐and microstructures within the coronal portion of the external hex implant at the marginal bone change after loading. The fifty‐four patients included in the study were randomly assigned to treatment groups with rough‐surface implants (TiUnite, n = 45), a hybrid of smooth and rough surface implants (Restore, n = 45) or rough‐surface with microthreads implants (Hexplant, n = 45). Clinical and radiographic examinations were conducted at the time of implant loading (baseline) and at 1‐year post‐loading. A three‐level mixed‐effect ancova was used to test the significance of the mean marginal bone change of the three implant groups from baseline to 1‐year follow‐up. At 1‐year, significant differences were noted in marginal bone loss recorded for the three groups (P < 0·0001). The rough surface with microthread implants had a mean crestal bone loss of 0·42 ± 0·27 mm; the rough surface implants, 0·81 ± 0·27 mm; and the hybrid surface implants, 0·89 ± 0·41 mm. Within the limitations of this study, a rough surface with microthreads at the coronal part of implant maintained the marginal bone level against functional loading better than implants without these two features.