Premium
Radiological and clinical follow‐up of machined‐ and anodized‐surface implants after mean functional loading for 33 months
Author(s) -
Watzak Georg,
Zechner Werner,
Busenlechner Dieter,
Arnhart Christof,
Gruber Reinhard,
Watzek Georg
Publication year - 2006
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 - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01275.x
Subject(s) - implant , medicine , dentistry , bleeding on probing , radiography , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , surgery , periodontitis , botany , biology , genus
The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare peri‐implant bone loss and mucosal conditions around machined‐surface (MS) and anodized‐surface (AS) interforaminal implants in the mandible at least 30 months after placement. Fifty patients, each treated with four interforaminal screw‐type implants consecutively, were included. Thirty‐one patients (62%) with a total number of 124 implants (64 MS and 60 AS implants, both Brånemark type MKIII) were available for follow‐up. Rotational panoramic radiographs were used for evaluating marginal bone loss. Clinically, marginal plaque index (mPI), bleeding on probing (BOP) and pocket probing depth (PPD) were evaluated. AS implants showed significantly less marginal bone loss than MS implants (−1.17±0.13 vs. −1.42±0.13 mm; P =0.03). Marginal bone loss around distal implants was less pronounced at AS implants (−1.05±0.14 mm) when compared with MS implants (−1.46±0.14 mm; P =0.05). Within the smoking group, there was less peri‐implant bone loss around AS implants than around MS implants (−1.08±0.27 vs. −1.83±0.2; P =0.04). No differences between MS and AS implants were found with respect to mPI (57% vs. 67%), BOP (21% vs. 17%) and mean PPD (2.59±0.29 vs. 2.56±0.28 mm). Overall, both types of implants, in combination with bar‐supported overdentures, can produce excellent long‐term results in the interforaminal edentulous mandible with less peri‐implant bone loss around rough implant surfaces, which had beneficial effects at distal implants and in smokers.