Premium
A 5‐year randomized clinical trial comparing minimally with moderately rough implants in patients with severe periodontitis
Author(s) -
Raes Magalie,
D'hondt Rutger,
Teughels Wim,
Coucke Wim,
Quirynen Marc
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/jcpe.12901
Subject(s) - bleeding on probing , medicine , dentistry , periodontitis , clinical attachment loss , peri implantitis , implant , orthodontics , surgery
Aim To compare the clinical and microbiological performance of minimally and moderately rough implants in patients with a history of severe periodontitis. Material and Methods Forty‐eight minimally (Turned surface [Tur]) and moderately (TiUnite surface [TiU]) rough implants were placed in eighteen patients according to a split‐mouth protocol. Marginal bone loss, probing pocket depth ( PPD ), clinical attachment level ( CAL ), and bleeding on probing (BoP) were recorded, and microbial samples were analysed by means of quantitative PCR . Results The amount of bone loss over the 5‐year period tended to be lower along Tur when compared with that of TiU surfaces (1.0 versus 1.7 mm, p = .06). Although the clinical outcomes tended to be better for Tur surfaces, there were no significant differences between both surfaces in mean PPD (Tur: 3.1 versus TiU: 4.2 mm, p = .09) or CAL (Tur: 0.5 versus TiU: 1.7 mm, p = .06). More bone loss and deeper pockets were recorded for partially than for fully edentulous patients. The cumulative survival rate at 5‐year follow‐up was 95.8% for Tur, and 100% for TiU surface implants. No significant differences were found between the surfaces in counts for key pathogens. Conclusion In patients with a history of severe periodontitis minimally rough implants showed more favourable clinical parameters after 5 years of loading, when compared with moderately rough implants.