Premium
A prospective split‐mouth comparative study of two screw‐shaped self‐tapping pure titanium implant systems
Author(s) -
Steenberghe Daniel,
Mars Greet,
Quirynen Marc,
Jacobs Reinhilde,
Naert Ignace
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003202.x
Subject(s) - implant , dentistry , titanium , orthodontics , materials science , medicine , surgery , metallurgy
Clinical data indicate different medium and long‐term outcomes of endosseous implants for different implant configurations and in particular implant surfaces. The present study compares 2 very similar implant systems but with different surface characteristics in a split‐mouth‐randomized design. The Astra‐Tech (A) system (Astra‐Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) consisted of selftapping TiO 2 ‐blasted screw‐shaped implants made of commercially pure titanium, and the Brånemark (B) System (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden) comprised selftapping Mark II implants with machined surface irregularities. Throughout the 2‐years' observation period, no significant differences could be found concerning probing depths, presence of plaque or change in marginal bone level. A statistically significant difference in location of the marginal bone level in relation to the shoulder of the implant was found in favor of the A system both at baseline and after 2 years. Cumulative success rates of 100% (A) and 97.7% (B) were not statistically different. From a prosthetic point of view, more soldering points were needed for A compared to B to reach clinical acceptable fit. More years of observation are needed to compare the fate of the soft and hard tissues surrounding two different implant surfaces.