A prospective split‐mouth comparative study of two screw‐shaped self‐tapping pure titanium implant systems

Abstract

Clinical data indicate different medium and long-term outcomes of endosseous implants for different implant configurations and in particular implant surfaces. The present study compares 2 very similar implant systems but with different surface characteristics in a split-mouth-randomized design. The Astra-Tech (A) system (Astra-Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) consisted of selftapping TiO2-blasted screw-shaped implants made of commercially pure titanium, and the Brånemark (B) System (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden) comprised selftapping Mark II implants with machined surface irregularities. Throughout the 2-years' observation period, no significant differences could be found concerning probing depths, presence of plaque or change in marginal bone level. A statistically significant difference in location of the marginal bone level in relation to the shoulder of the implant was found in favor of the A system both at baseline and after 2 years. Cumulative success rates of 100% (A) and 97.7% (B) were not statistically different. From a prosthetic point of view, more soldering points were needed for A compared to B to reach clinical acceptable fit. More years of observation are needed to compare the fate of the soft and hard tissues surrounding two different implant surfaces.

Marginal bone loss in relation to the implant neck surface: An update

“…In the case of the rough neck implants without microthreading, the survival rate varied from 94.5% (18) to 100% (3,4,6,9,17). Lastly, in the rough neck implants with microthreading, the survival rate was found to be 100% (3)(4)(5)10).…”

“…In the studies involving a follow-up of over year (3,8,9,17,18), the greatest bone loss was seen to occur during the first year, and then gradually decreased.…”

“…This loss begins at the neck of the implant and spreads to the first thread of the body of the implant or to the first contact between the bone and the rough surface of the implant (3). Peri-implant bone reabsorption depends on a number of factors such as the surface of the neck (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10) and reduction of the implant platform (11)(12)(13). There is no agreement regarding the influence of performing surgery in one or two steps (14)(15)(16) or of the cylindrical or conical morphology of the neck (3,4).…”

Surface characteristics of titanium dental implants for Rapid osseointegration

“…Other studies have reported high clinical success rates for titanium grit-blasted implants, up to 10 years after implantation 30,31 . Comparative clinical studies gave higher marginal bone levels and survival rates for TiO2 grit-blasted implants than for machined turned implants 32,33 . Wennerberg et al 13 demonstrated with a rabbit model that grit-blasting with TiO2 or Al2O3 particles gave similar values of bone-implant contact, but drastically increased the biomechanical fixation of the implants when compared to smooth titanium.…”

Application of Finite Element Analysis in Implant Dentistry

“…The influence of these surface modifications on BIC and cell attachment are still being investigated for a stronger osseointegration level between implant body and bone. Comparative studies show different BIC levels changing from 13% to 80% percent [69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79]. BIC values may change according to the jaw, placement of the region of the implant, healing time, implant design, and surface structure [64,69,70,[72][73][74].…”