Three-Year Evaluation of the Influence of Implant Surfaces on Implant Failure and Peri-implantitis: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial with Split-Mouth Design.

PURPOSE To compare the onset of peri-implantitis, incidence of failure, and peri-implant marginal bone level changes between implants with a roughened surface and those with a machined/turned surface. MATERIALS AND METHODS All patients needing two dental implants of the same size on the left and right sides of the same arch, and not scheduled for immediate loading, were enrolled between October 2012 and February 2016. The patients were randomly allocated either to Nobel Biocare MKIII or Sweden & Martina Outlink2. Rough-surface implants and machined-surface implants were used from each company. After the preparation of two identical implant sites, each implant (rough or machined of the same group) was randomly allocated to the right and left sides of the same patient, following a split-mouth design. Outcome measures were peri-implantitis onset, incidence of failure, and peri-implant marginal bone level changes. Patients were followed up for 3 years after loading. RESULTS One hundred fourteen patients were enrolled and treated; nine patients dropped out. Following an intent-to-treat analysis to avoid overestimation, proportions are given related to the initial number of 114 patients. Peri-implantitis incidence was 4.39% for machined implants (5/114), 0.88% for rough implants (1/114), 1.75% in the Nobel Biocare group (2 cases), and 3.51% in the Sweden & Martina group (4 cases). The failure rate was 1.75% in machined implants (2/114), 0.88% in rough implants (1/114), 0.98% in the Nobel Biocare group (1/114), and 1.85% in the Sweden & Martina group (1/114). No statistically significant differences in marginal bone loss were found comparing different surfaces, while marginal bone loss was significantly lower in Nobel Biocare than in Sweden & Martina implants. CONCLUSION Based on the results of this study, no significant differences can be demonstrated in either peri-implantitis or failure rate or in marginal bone loss between rough and machined implants. Marginal bone loss was significantly worse in machined-surface Sweden & Martina than in rough-surface Nobel Biocare implants.

[1]  M. Esposito,et al.  Immediately loaded machined versus rough surface dental implants in edentulous jaws: One-year postloading results of a pilot randomised controlled trial. , 2015, European journal of oral implantology.

[2]  Ronald Jung,et al.  A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[3]  M. Manzanares-Céspedes,et al.  Assessment of osteointegrative response around dental implants using technetium 99-methylene diphosphate scintigraphy: a comparison of two implant surfaces in a rabbit model. , 2012, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[4]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Machined and sandblasted human dental implants retrieved after 5 years: a histologic and histomorphometric analysis of three cases. , 2012, Quintessence international.

[5]  R. Calandriello,et al.  Immediate occlusal loading of single lower molars using Brånemark System® Wide Platform TiUnite™ implants: a 5-year follow-up report of a prospective clinical multicenter study. , 2011, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[6]  R. Scotti,et al.  A 36-month randomized controlled split-mouth trial comparing immediately loaded titanium oxide-anodized and machined implants supporting fixed partial dentures in the posterior mandible. , 2011, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[7]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Impact of smoking on human bone apposition at different dental implant surfaces: a histologic study in type IV bone. , 2010, The Journal of oral implantology.

[8]  J. Wennström,et al.  A prospective, multicenter, randomized-controlled 5-year study of hybrid and fully etched implants for the incidence of peri-implantitis. , 2010, Journal of periodontology.

[9]  F. Schwarz,et al.  In vivo and in vitro biofilm formation on two different titanium implant surfaces. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  On implant surfaces: a review of current knowledge and opinions. , 2010, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[11]  E. Nkenke,et al.  Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels adjacent to parallel-screw cylinder machined-neck implants and rough-surfaced microthreaded implants using digitized panoramic radiographs. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  Sangwon Park,et al.  Comparion of stability in titanium implants with different surface topographies in dogs , 2009, The journal of advanced prosthodontics.

[13]  S. Taschieri,et al.  Implant survival rates after maxillary sinus augmentation. , 2008, European journal of oral sciences.

[14]  P. Trisi,et al.  Osseointegration of Osseotite and machined-surfaced titanium implants in membrane-covered critical-sized defects: a histologic and histometric study in dogs. , 2007, Clinical oral implants research.

[15]  C. Scapoli,et al.  Immediate loading of dental implants supporting fixed partial dentures in the posterior mandible: a randomized controlled split-mouth study--machined versus titanium oxide implant surface. , 2007, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[16]  P. Coulthard,et al.  Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[17]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Histologic evaluation of early human bone response to different implant surfaces. , 2006, Journal of periodontology.

[18]  B. Rangert,et al.  Immediate functional loading of Brånemark System implants with enhanced initial stability: a prospective 1- to 2-year clinical and radiographic study. , 2003, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[19]  M. Hallman,et al.  Nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the treatment of the partially edentulous maxilla. , 2002, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[20]  P. D. de Oliveira,et al.  Histomorphometric analysis of the bone-implant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatments placed side by side in the dog mandible. , 2002, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[21]  G. Sagulin,et al.  Brånemark System and ITI Dental Implant System for treatment of mandibular edentulism. A comparative randomized study: 3-year follow-up. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[22]  M. Quirynen,et al.  Marginal bone loss around implants retaining hinging mandibular overdentures, at 4-, 8- and 12-years follow-up. , 2001, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[23]  L Sennerby,et al.  Histologic evaluation of the bone integration of TiO(2) blasted and turned titanium microimplants in humans. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[24]  A Scarano,et al.  Removal torque and histomorphometric investigation of 4 different titanium surfaces: an experimental study in the rabbit tibia. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[25]  M. Quirynen,et al.  A prospective split-mouth comparative study of two screw-shaped self-tapping pure titanium implant systems. , 2000, Clinical oral implants research.

[26]  K. Gröndahl,et al.  Astra Tech and Brånemark System implants: a prospective 5-year comparative study. Results after one year. , 1999, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[27]  R. Nishimura,et al.  COUNTERTORQUE TESTING AND HISTOMORPHOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS IMPLANT SURFACES IN CANINES: A PILOT STUDY , 1997, Implant dentistry.