A Comparative Analysis of Marginal Bone Loss of Hydrophilic Implants versus non-hydrophilic Implants placed on Edentulous Ridge in Mandibular Implant Overdenture

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Objective: This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of hydrophilic versus non-hydrophilic dental implants, focusing on key parameters such as marginal bone loss, implant survival rates, and bone-to-implant contact (BIC). The review seeks to determine whether hydrophilic surfaces offer a significant clinical advantage and to identify areas for future research. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, covering studies published from 2015 to 2023. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies, and in vivo experiments comparing hydrophilic and non-hydrophilic implants. Data extraction focused on outcomes related to marginal bone loss, implant survival, and BIC. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: A total of 10 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 450 implants in various clinical settings. The findings revealed that hydrophilic implants generally demonstrated lower marginal bone loss and higher BIC percentages compared to non-hydrophilic implants, with survival rates exceeding 97% in most studies. However, the differences in outcomes were not consistently significant across all studies, highlighting variability in results based on implant type, patient demographics, and follow-up duration. Conclusion: Hydrophilic implants show potential advantages in terms of marginal bone loss and BIC, particularly in early loading protocols. However, further long-term studies with standardized methodologies are needed to confirm these benefits and optimize clinical guidelines for implant selection.