Radiological and clinical follow-up of machined- and anodized-surface implants after mean functional loading for 33 months
- PMID: 17092223
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01275.x
Radiological and clinical follow-up of machined- and anodized-surface implants after mean functional loading for 33 months
Abstract
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.
Similar articles
-
Radiologic follow-up of peri-implant bone loss around machine-surfaced and rough-surfaced interforaminal implants in the mandible functionally loaded for 3 to 7 years.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 Mar-Apr;19(2):216-21. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004. PMID: 15101592
-
Impact of implant surface topography: a clinical study with a mean functional loading time of 85 months.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Sep;24(9):1049-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02498.x. Epub 2012 May 17. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013. PMID: 22591462
-
Clinical characteristics at implants with a history of progressive bone loss.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Feb;19(2):142-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01448.x. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008. PMID: 18184340
-
Marginal bone loss in relation to the implant neck surface: an update.Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011 May 1;16(3):e365-8. doi: 10.4317/medoral.16.e365. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011. PMID: 21196878 Review.
-
Anodized dental implant surface.Indian J Dent Res. 2017 Jan-Feb;28(1):76-99. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_386_16. Indian J Dent Res. 2017. PMID: 28393822 Review.
Cited by
-
Prevalence of Peri-Implantitis in Implants with Turned and Rough Surfaces: a Systematic Review.J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2019 Mar 31;10(1):e1. doi: 10.5037/jomr.2019.10101. eCollection 2019 Jan-Mar. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2019. PMID: 31069039 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Immediate function on the day of surgery compared with a delayed implant loading process in the mandible: a randomized clinical trial over 5 years.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Dec;25(12):1325-35. doi: 10.1111/clr.12279. Epub 2013 Oct 23. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014. PMID: 24148020 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials