Premium
Five‐Year Evaluation of Lifecore Restore® Implants: A Retrospective Comparison with Nobel Biocare MK II® Implants
Author(s) -
Kallus Thomas,
Bessing Christer,
Homsi George,
Eklund Inger
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00115.x
Subject(s) - implant , dentistry , medicine , resorption , orthodontics , surgery , pathology
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare survival rates and marginal bone resorption of the Lifecore (LC) Restore® Implant System with the benchmark Nobel Biocare (NB) MK II® Implant System. Materials and Methods: All implants were inserted by the same surgeon and all radiological analyses were performed by the same radiologist. Two hundred ninety LC implants were analyzed radiologically after 1 year and compared with the same number of NB implants serving as a historical reference group. After 5 years, 200 LC implants could be compared with 224 NB implants. Each implant was monitored for exposed threads, as compared with the baseline registrations. Results: No significant differences were found between the two implant systems regarding survival rates (LC 100% and NB 99.2%). Considering the findings of this study, the two implant systems compared might be regarded as clones. Nevertheless, because of dissimilar onset of threads, about 1 mm more implant‐retaining bone anchorage is gained with the Lifecore Restore Implants as compared with NB MK II Implants. Conclusions: Based on the assumption that >3 exposed NB threads correspond to >4 exposed LC threads, significantly more bone loss ( p < .01) could be demonstrated for the NB implants after 5 years. Thus, it may be justified to consider the differences in implant design to have a decisive clinical relevance.