Brånemark System^® and ITI Dental Implant System^® for treatment of mandibular edentulism

Abstract

In a randomized prospective study, two implant systems were compared in forty consecutive patients treated for mandibular edentulism. The patients were randomly allotted for treatment by the Brånemark two-stage (submerged) system (BRS), or the ITI(R) one-stage (non-submerged) system. In all, 102 Brånemark selftapping implants and 106 ITI hollow screw implants were installed and all patients were treated with full bridges. Biological and prosthodontic parameters, complications, success rates, clinical efficacy, patient satisfaction and resource requirements were evaluated. No differences were found in plaque accumulation, bleeding or complications during the follow-up period. The BRS group showed deeper periimplant sulcus, less attached mucosa, larger bridge-mucosa distance and higher Periotest values. Prosthetic complications were not related to the configuration of the implant systems. After 3 years, the cumulative success rates were 97.9% and 96.8% for the Brånemark and ITI systems, respectively (difference not statistically significant). One implant in the BRS group had failed to osseointegrate at the time of abutment connection, and another was lost after 2 years due to progressive breakdown of bone. In the ITI group, three implants showed progressive bone loss after 1-3 years associated with periimplant infection. All 40 bridges were intact and remained stable throughout the study. There was general patient satisfaction, but about half the Brånemark patients reported difficulty in coping with the surgical procedures. Treatment time was similar for the two systems. It is concluded that both systems meet the current requirements for dental implant systems in the treatment of mandibular edentulism.

Titanium oral implants: surface characteristics, interface biology and clinical outcome

“…Implant surfaces modified with or releasing biologically active substances, new microscopic and analytical tools, and the new, emerging understanding about stem and progenitor cells will play an important role in acquiring the knowledge necessary for specifying the optimal properties of the next generation of oral implants for a given clinical indication. test for overall effect: Z = 2.38 (P = 0.02) heterogeneity: tau 2 = 0; Chi 2 = 1.52, df = 2 (P = 0.47); l 2 = 0% Moberg (2001) Åstrand (2002) Åstrand (1999) Figure 4. Forest plot illustrating the number of patients affected by peri-implantitis when comparing implants with a turned (machined) or rough surface after 3 years in function (Esposito et al 2007).…”

“…(iii) Brånemark versus IMZ implants (Batenburg et al 1998). (iv) Brånemark versus ITI implants (Batenburg et al 1998;Moberg et al 2001;Å strand et al 2002). (v) Brånemark TiUnite versus Southern implants (Payne et al 2004).…”

“…-Peri-implantitis between turned and roughened surfaces at 3 years (three trials; Å strand et al Moberg et al 2001). …”

“…-Early failures between turned and roughened surfaces (seven trials; Batenburg et al 1998;Å strand et al 1999Moberg et al 2001;Wennström et al 2004;Fröberg et al 2006;Schincaglia et al 2007). -Peri-implantitis between turned and roughened surfaces at 3 years (three trials; Å strand et al Moberg et al 2001).…”

Histological response of anodized titanium implant

“…Differences in shape and surface characteristics of different implant systems could also influence handling, time and other resources used, and clinical success 8) .…”