Stability of dental implants with sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) and modified (SLActive) surfaces during the osseointegration period.

Gulsum Sayin Ozel,Dogan Dolanmaz,Ozgur Inan,Gamze Alniacik Iyidogan,Asli Secilmis Acar,Gulsun Yildirim

doi:10.34172/joddd.2021.037

Abstract

Background. The surface properties of implants are effective factors for increasing the osseointegration and activity of osteoprogenitor cells. This study compared the stability of dental implants with sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) and modified surfaces (SLActive) using the resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Methods. In a split-mouth design, 50 dental implants with either SLA surface properties (n=25) or modified (SLActive) surface properties (n=25) were placed in the mandibles of 12 patients with a bilateral posterior edentulous area. Implant stability was measured using RFA (Osstell) at implant placement time and every week for 1, 2, and 3 months before the conventional loading time. Results. One week following the implantation, implant stability increased from 70 to 77.67 for SLA and from 71.67 to 79 for SLActive (P < 0.05). Stability improved each week except in the 4th week in SLActive surface measurements. No significant differences were observed between the groups at 2 and 3 months (P > 0.05). Conclusions. For both implant surfaces, increased stability was observed over time, with no significant differences between the groups.

Highlights

Stability is a measure of the difficulty of disturbing an object or system’s equilibrium.[1]
The changes in the mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) values of sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) and SLActive surfaces over time are presented in Table 1 and Figure 1
SLActive surface measurements increased each week except the 4th week, in which ISQ decreased (P < 0.05)

Summary

Introduction

Stability is a measure of the difficulty of disturbing an object or system’s equilibrium.[1]. SLA and SLActive surfaces are made of the same Grade 2 titanium and treated with the same sandblasting and acid-etching technique (250–500-μm corundum sandblasting + H2SO4/HCl acid etching) They differ because the SLActive surfaces have an additional procedure-laving under nitrogen conservation to avoid air contact and are kept in a sealed glass tube with an isotonic NaCl solution to prevent drying and preserve the clean TiO2 passivation layer for a more hydrophilic surface.[22] Previous studies that compared the SLA and SLActive surfaces reported that SLActive surfaces provided 60% more bone formation and SLActive surfaces exhibited significant stability improvements two weeks after implant placement.[23]. The present study aimed to compare the stability of implants with SLA and SLActive surface properties at the time of implant placement, and 1-, 2-, and 3-week, and 1-, 2-, and 3-month intervals following placement, using RFA

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Limitations