A 5‐year randomized clinical trial comparing minimally with moderately rough implants in patients with severe periodontitis

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.