Abstract
The aim of this chart review was to obtain an objective, quantitative assessment of the clinical performance of an implant line used in an implantological office setting. Implants with hydrophilic (INICELL) and hydrophobic (TST; both: Thommen Medical AG, Grenchen, Switzerland) enossal surfaces were compared and the cumulative implant survival rate was calculated. The data of 1063 patients that received 2918 implants (1337 INICELL, 1581 TST) was included. The average follow up time was 2.1 (1.1–5.4) years for INICELL and 4.5 (1.3–5.9) years for TST implants (Thommen Medical AG, Switzerland). In the reported period 7 implants with INICELL (0.5%) and 23 TST implants (1.5%) failed. This difference was statistically significant. The analysis of cases treated and followed up in a single implantological office for 6 years confirmed the very good clinical outcome that was achieved with both used implant lines. Within the limitations of this retrospective analysis, the overall early failure rate of the hydrophilic implants was significantly lower than that of hydrophobic implants. The use of hydrophilic implants allows the clinician to obtain less early failures, hence the interest of an up-to-date surface for the daily work of an implant practice.
Highlights
The reconstruction of missing teeth by Titanium dental implants is currently the gold standard in dental rehabilitation [1,2]
The clinical performance of Titanium implants has been documented for certain brands but currently there is a wide variety of dental implants with limited, or even no clinical documentation
Ever since the first studies showing the clinical interest of the peculiar affinity of bone tissue for titanium, the industry has invested a lot in order to improve the implant surfaces [3]
Summary
The reconstruction of missing teeth by Titanium dental implants is currently the gold standard in dental rehabilitation [1,2]. In the course of time, clinicians had at their disposal implants machined, in the 80s implants with rough enossal surfaces, which resulted in an improved rate of osseointegration. The microstructured, or moderately rough, surfaces realized through sand-blasting and acid etching became the gold standard with failure rates as low as 1% [1]. Recent developments should even improve osseointegration, especially by rendering the surfaces to become hydrophilic.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
