Premium
RCT comparing minimally with moderately rough implants. Part 1: clinical observations
Author(s) -
Assche N.,
Coucke W.,
Teughels W.,
Naert I.,
Cardoso M. V.,
Quirynen M.
Publication year - 2012
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.1600-0501.2011.02256.x
Subject(s) - dentistry , medicine , implant , periodontitis , abutment , dental abutments , randomized controlled trial , clinical study , dental implant , radiography , orthodontics , surgery , civil engineering , engineering
Aim This 1‐year prospective RCT compared the outcome of minimally (turned) and moderately rough (TiUnite ® ) implant surfaces. Material and methods Two subgroups of patients were formed; one group ( n = 10) where all teeth had been extracted due to severe periodontitis, another group ( n = 8) with teeth in the antagonistic jaw with a history of periodontitis and some remaining medium pockets (4–6 mm). Implants ( n = 85, 43 turned & 42 TiUnite ® ) were installed randomly in each patient. After 3–6 months of submerged healing, healing abutments were connected, followed by final abutments 2 weeks later, all with the same surface characteristics as the supporting implant. Peri‐implant parameters and intra‐oral radiographs were recorded up to 1 year after abutment connection. Results Two turned implants failed in the partial edentulous group during the initial healing period ( CSR : 95%) and none of the TiUnite ® ( CSR : 100%) surface. No statistically significant differences in clinical parameters could be observed between both surfaces. The partial edentulous subgroup showed more bone loss compared to the full edentulous subgroup. Conclusion Moderately rough implants have a similar clinical outcome (at 1 year of loading in periodontitis susceptible patients) compared to minimally rough implants.