Can implant surfaces affect implant stability during osseointegration? A randomized clinical trial.

Eduardo Dickie de CASTILHOS,Luiz Carlos do CARMO FILHO,Fernanda FAOT,Altair Antoninha DEL BEL CURY,Raissa Micaella MARCELLO-MACHADO

doi:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0110

Eduardo Dickie de CASTILHOS, Luiz Carlos do CARMO FILHO

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0110

Copy DOI

Abstract

This randomized clinical trial evaluated the insertion torque (IT), primary, and secondary stability of dental implants with different surface treatments during the osseointegration period. Nineteen patients with bilateral partial edentulism in the posterior mandibular region were randomly allocated to two implant brand groups and received implants with different surface treatments in the opposite site of the arch: Osseotite and Nanotite or SLA and SLActive. During implant placement, the maximum IT was recorded using a surgical motor equipped with a graphical user interface. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was assessed immediately after the IT, and was measured weekly via resonance frequency analysis during 3 months. The data were analyzed by a one-way ANOVA, the Bonferroni test, paired t tests and Pearson's correlation coefficient. The IT values were similar (p > 0.05) for all implant types ranging from 43.82 ± 6.50 to 46.84 ± 5.06. All implant types behaved similarly until the 28th day (p > 0.05). Between 35 and 56 days, Osseotite and SLActive showed lower ISQ values (p < 0.001) compared to Nanotite and SLA implants. After 56 days, only Osseotite maintained significantly lower ISQ values than the other implants (p < 0.05). After 91 days the ISQ values were significantly higher than the baseline for all four implant types (p < 0.001). The ISQ and IT values were significantly correlated at the baseline and at the final evaluation for Osseotite, Nanotite, and SLActive implants (p < 0.001). After 91 days, ISQ and IT values were only significantly correlated for the Osseotite implants (p < 0.05). All implants types exhibited acceptable primary and secondary stability.

Highlights

In recent decades, scientific progress has enabled widespread clinical applications for dental implants in the domain of oral rehabilitation through the implementation of simplified surgical techniques, innovations in macro- and microgeometry, and surface treatments.[1,2,3]
Primary and secondary stability and the insertion torque of dental implants with four different surfaces during the healing process. Experimental design This double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, 2008, following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement (CONSORT)[22] and aimed to evaluate the insertion torque and implant stability of dental implants with four different implant surfaces in the posterior region of the mandible
The sample size calculation was based on the implant stability quotient (ISQ) means and SD of SLA RN (76.5 ± 6.5) and SLActive (78.8 ± 3.20) groups at 12 weeks recorded in a previous study[25]

Summary

Introduction

Scientific progress has enabled widespread clinical applications for dental implants in the domain of oral rehabilitation through the implementation of simplified surgical techniques, innovations in macro- and microgeometry, and surface treatments.[1,2,3]. The choice of implants with modified surfaces has directly influenced implant survival rates.[1] Previous studies have shown that the bone quality is directly affected by the surface roughness of the implants.[4,5] At the start of osseointegration, the adhesion of osteoblasts to the dental implant surface is insufficient to guarantee complete healing This early adhesion is a prerequisite for osteoblast proliferation by mesenchymal cells.[5] Increasing the surface roughness of the implants facilitates the retention of osteogenic cells and enables the faster migration of these cells to the implant surface via osteoconduction.[1]

Methods

Results

Conclusion