2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02255.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

RCT comparing minimally with moderately rough implants. Part 2: microbial observations

Abstract: The roughness of the more modern implants did not influence the biofilm formation during the first year of implant loading.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
42
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
(146 reference statements)
2
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, there exists some debate on the influence of surface roughness on cellular adhesion and clinical outcome. A previous study claimed that the surface roughness of the implants did not significantly affect biofilm formation during the first 3 years of implant loading [54]. After this period, titanium implants, which were moderately rough, demonstrated a similar clinical outcome compared with the minimally rough machine-turned implants and no statistically significant difference in clinical, microbiological and biochemical parameters could be detected.…”
Section: Surface Roughnessmentioning
confidence: 50%
“…However, there exists some debate on the influence of surface roughness on cellular adhesion and clinical outcome. A previous study claimed that the surface roughness of the implants did not significantly affect biofilm formation during the first 3 years of implant loading [54]. After this period, titanium implants, which were moderately rough, demonstrated a similar clinical outcome compared with the minimally rough machine-turned implants and no statistically significant difference in clinical, microbiological and biochemical parameters could be detected.…”
Section: Surface Roughnessmentioning
confidence: 50%
“…). During the first year of implant loading implant surface roughness does not seem to influence the biofilm formation (Quirynen & Van Assche ). This is consistent with the findings at year 7, confirming that the biofilm did not differ as an effect of implant surface and design (Renvert et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The study population (Table ) is derived from the group previously described (Quirynen & Van Assche , Van Assche et al. ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was hypothesized that moderately rough implants would present improved clinical parameters due to an improved soft tissue sealing. The results up to 1 year of loading have been published (Quirynen & Van Assche , Van Assche et al. ), and the current report deals with the results after 3 years of loading.…”
mentioning
confidence: 93%