Patient expectations on implant success and predictability are high compared with their reluctance towards treatment costs and duration. Acceptance of treatment morbidity is high among patients reporting low denture satisfaction; however, minimally invasive treatment alternatives are generally preferred.
The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare peri-implant bone loss and mucosal conditions around machined-surface (MS) and anodized-surface (AS) interforaminal implants in the mandible at least 30 months after placement. Fifty patients, each treated with four interforaminal screw-type implants consecutively, were included. Thirty-one patients (62%) with a total number of 124 implants (64 MS and 60 AS implants, both Brånemark type MKIII) were available for follow-up. Rotational panoramic radiographs were used for evaluating marginal bone loss. Clinically, marginal plaque index (mPI), bleeding on probing (BOP) and pocket probing depth (PPD) were evaluated. AS implants showed significantly less marginal bone loss than MS implants (-1.17+/-0.13 vs. -1.42+/-0.13 mm; P=0.03). Marginal bone loss around distal implants was less pronounced at AS implants (-1.05+/-0.14 mm) when compared with MS implants (-1.46+/-0.14 mm; P=0.05). Within the smoking group, there was less peri-implant bone loss around AS implants than around MS implants (-1.08+/-0.27 vs. -1.83+/-0.2; P=0.04). No differences between MS and AS implants were found with respect to mPI (57% vs. 67%), BOP (21% vs. 17%) and mean PPD (2.59+/-0.29 vs. 2.56+/-0.28 mm). Overall, both types of implants, in combination with bar-supported overdentures, can produce excellent long-term results in the interforaminal edentulous mandible with less peri-implant bone loss around rough implant surfaces, which had beneficial effects at distal implants and in smokers.
The model represents a pathologic situation of excess resorption of DBBM and bone in an augmented area. The underlying cellular mechanisms remain to be uncovered.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.