Survival of turned and roughened dental implants in irradiated head and neck cancer patients: A retrospective analysis

Osseointegration: Hierarchical designing encompassing the macrometer, micrometer, and nanometer length scales

“…This is in accordance with the report from Pinholt stating that the survival of moderately roughened implants was significantly higher compared to that of turned implants in grafted maxillary bone sites [88]. Even in post-tumor-resected irradiated sites, implant survival is dramatically higher for moderately roughened implant surfaces than for turned surfaces after 5 years in function [89], which indicates that treatment using moderately roughened implants significantly improved postoperative quality of life for patients who undergo massive oral and maxillofacial resection therapy.…”

Crestal Bone Loss and Oral Implants

“…Modern implants have demonstrated significantly improved clinical results in comparison to old, turned (“machined”) devices, if any challenging conditions apply. Challenging conditions include patient smoking, the use of short implants, rapid or direct loading, maxillary implants, or implants placed in irradiated or grafted beds. Due to such documented advantages, Friberg and Jemt, who reported the clinical results achieved at the so‐called Brånemark Clinic where osseointegrated oral implants have been used over the last 35 years, noticed a sharp drop in failure rate following the introduction of modern implants, in this case a shift from turned Brånemark implants over to TiUnite implants, indicative that clinical improvements depend on the novel implants and not on a learning curve of the clinicians.…”

An Up to 12‐Year Retrospective Follow‐Up on Immediately Loaded, Surface‐Modified Implants in the Edentulous Mandible

“…Clinical studies comparing turned and roughened implants found little difference in terms of marginal bone loss or implant survival . However, in more demanding cases such as immediate loading, short implants, or compromised patients, the moderately rough implants demonstrated a better survival rate …”

“…[20][21][22][23] However, in more demanding cases such as immediate loading, short implants, or compromised patients, the moderately rough implants demonstrated a better survival rate. [24][25][26][27] Although the success of immediate loading with the current generation of implants has been proven through extensive research, most clinical studies are short term. Long-term data are scarce and are often based on implants that are no longer on the market.…”