Premium
A comparative study of flexible (Polyactive®) versus rigid (hydroxylapatite) permucosal dental implants. I. Clinical aspects
Author(s) -
MEIJER G.J.,
CUNE M.S.,
DOOREN M.,
PUTTER C.,
BLITTERSWIJK C. A.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1997.tb00300.x
Subject(s) - hydroxylapatite , materials science , implant , dentistry , titanium , polybutylene terephthalate , porosity , composite material , biomedical engineering , polyester , chemistry , medicine , surgery , biochemistry , metallurgy , enzyme
summary Recently, an elastomeric polyethylene‐oxide polybutylene‐terephthalate (PEO:PBT) copolymer (Polyactive®) was introduced, which exhibits bone‐bonding characteristics. In contrast to ceramics, bioglass, titanium and other metals, PEO:PBT copolymers are flexible materials that could reduce undesirable peak stresses along the neck of a permucosal implant. The application of three types of Polyactive®permucosal dental implants (one dense and two porous types) and one dense hydroxylapatite (HA) implant were clinically tested and compared during 30 weeks of loading in a dog experiment. With respect to the porous Polyactive® implants, it was observed that the pore diameter had decreased to such an extent that optimal bone ingrowth was not achieved. Polyactive® is known to expand due to water uptake, and, as a consequence, the sizes of the pores of the press‐fit inserted implants had decreased to a large extent. This feature explained the high loss of the implants with the porous outer layer (6 out of 22). None of the dense Polyactive® implants and only one of the HA implants were lost. Statistical analysis was performed solely on the dense Polyactive® and the HA implants. At the lingual sites, plaque scores, gingiva indices, bleeding indices and corresponding pocket depths were statistically significantly lower for both implant types, when compared to the corresponding values at the buccal, mesial and distal sites, irrespective of the observation period. Differences between the dense Polyactive® and the HA implants were not observed. A considerable difference in mobility was registered between the Polyactive® and the hydroxylapatite implants, as measured by the Periotest®. The dense Polyactive® implants functioned adequately and had mobility resembling natural teeth. As such, these dense flexible materials showed a favourable clinical function and they seem promising for reducing undesired peak stresses when applied as a dental implant.