Cargando…

Do the New Hydrophilic Surface Have Any Influence on Early Success Rate and Implant Stability during Osseointegration Period? Four-Month Preliminary Results from a Split-Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective The objective of this study is to compare the implant stability of Hiossen ET III implants with its new hydrophilic (NH) surface and Hiossen ET III implants with the sandblasted and acid-etched (SA) surface. Materials and Methods Patients required at least two teeth to be rehabilitated wit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tallarico, Marco, Baldini, Nicola, Martinolli, Matteo, Xhanari, Erta, Kim, Yong-Jin, Cervino, Gabriele, Meloni, Silvio Mario
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd. 2019
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6635964/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31170768
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1688737
_version_ 1783435976300822528
author Tallarico, Marco
Baldini, Nicola
Martinolli, Matteo
Xhanari, Erta
Kim, Yong-Jin
Cervino, Gabriele
Meloni, Silvio Mario
author_facet Tallarico, Marco
Baldini, Nicola
Martinolli, Matteo
Xhanari, Erta
Kim, Yong-Jin
Cervino, Gabriele
Meloni, Silvio Mario
author_sort Tallarico, Marco
collection PubMed
description Objective The objective of this study is to compare the implant stability of Hiossen ET III implants with its new hydrophilic (NH) surface and Hiossen ET III implants with the sandblasted and acid-etched (SA) surface. Materials and Methods Patients required at least two teeth to be rehabilitated with a fixed, implant-supported restoration, consecutively enrolled. Patients randomly received SA surface implants (SA group) or SA implants with a newly developed bioabsorbable apatite nanocoating (NH group). Outcome measures were implant and prosthetic survival rate, complications, insertion torque, and implant stability quotient (ISQ) measured at implant placement and every week up to 8 weeks after implant placement. Comparison between groups was made by unpaired t -test, while the comparison between each follow-up will be made by paired t -tests to detect any change during the follow-up. Complications and failures were compared using Fisher's exact test. Results A total of 14 patients were treated with 28 implants (14 SA and 14 NH). No implant and prosthesis failed 4 months after implant placement. No complications were experienced. At the 2nd week after implants placement, two implants in the SA group showed discontinuous measurements versus none in the NH group ( p = 0.4815). Implants unscrewed during ISQ measurements and were rescrewed. Data recording stopped for 6 weeks. Both implants osseointegrated without any further complication. The NH implants did not show physiological ISQ decrease between 2nd and 4th week after implant placement, showing a more even pattern of ISQ values compared with SA implants (77.1 ± 4.6 vs. 72.9 ± 11.5; difference: 4.2 ± 12.1; p = 0.258). High ISQ values were found in both groups at each time point. Conclusions NH implants are a viable alternative to SA surface, as they seem to avoid the ISQ drop during the remodeling phase.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6635964
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66359642019-07-18 Do the New Hydrophilic Surface Have Any Influence on Early Success Rate and Implant Stability during Osseointegration Period? Four-Month Preliminary Results from a Split-Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial Tallarico, Marco Baldini, Nicola Martinolli, Matteo Xhanari, Erta Kim, Yong-Jin Cervino, Gabriele Meloni, Silvio Mario Eur J Dent Objective The objective of this study is to compare the implant stability of Hiossen ET III implants with its new hydrophilic (NH) surface and Hiossen ET III implants with the sandblasted and acid-etched (SA) surface. Materials and Methods Patients required at least two teeth to be rehabilitated with a fixed, implant-supported restoration, consecutively enrolled. Patients randomly received SA surface implants (SA group) or SA implants with a newly developed bioabsorbable apatite nanocoating (NH group). Outcome measures were implant and prosthetic survival rate, complications, insertion torque, and implant stability quotient (ISQ) measured at implant placement and every week up to 8 weeks after implant placement. Comparison between groups was made by unpaired t -test, while the comparison between each follow-up will be made by paired t -tests to detect any change during the follow-up. Complications and failures were compared using Fisher's exact test. Results A total of 14 patients were treated with 28 implants (14 SA and 14 NH). No implant and prosthesis failed 4 months after implant placement. No complications were experienced. At the 2nd week after implants placement, two implants in the SA group showed discontinuous measurements versus none in the NH group ( p = 0.4815). Implants unscrewed during ISQ measurements and were rescrewed. Data recording stopped for 6 weeks. Both implants osseointegrated without any further complication. The NH implants did not show physiological ISQ decrease between 2nd and 4th week after implant placement, showing a more even pattern of ISQ values compared with SA implants (77.1 ± 4.6 vs. 72.9 ± 11.5; difference: 4.2 ± 12.1; p = 0.258). High ISQ values were found in both groups at each time point. Conclusions NH implants are a viable alternative to SA surface, as they seem to avoid the ISQ drop during the remodeling phase. Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd. 2019-02 2019-06-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6635964/ /pubmed/31170768 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1688737 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Tallarico, Marco
Baldini, Nicola
Martinolli, Matteo
Xhanari, Erta
Kim, Yong-Jin
Cervino, Gabriele
Meloni, Silvio Mario
Do the New Hydrophilic Surface Have Any Influence on Early Success Rate and Implant Stability during Osseointegration Period? Four-Month Preliminary Results from a Split-Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial
title Do the New Hydrophilic Surface Have Any Influence on Early Success Rate and Implant Stability during Osseointegration Period? Four-Month Preliminary Results from a Split-Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial
title_full Do the New Hydrophilic Surface Have Any Influence on Early Success Rate and Implant Stability during Osseointegration Period? Four-Month Preliminary Results from a Split-Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial
title_fullStr Do the New Hydrophilic Surface Have Any Influence on Early Success Rate and Implant Stability during Osseointegration Period? Four-Month Preliminary Results from a Split-Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial
title_full_unstemmed Do the New Hydrophilic Surface Have Any Influence on Early Success Rate and Implant Stability during Osseointegration Period? Four-Month Preliminary Results from a Split-Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial
title_short Do the New Hydrophilic Surface Have Any Influence on Early Success Rate and Implant Stability during Osseointegration Period? Four-Month Preliminary Results from a Split-Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial
title_sort do the new hydrophilic surface have any influence on early success rate and implant stability during osseointegration period? four-month preliminary results from a split-mouth, randomized controlled trial
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6635964/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31170768
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1688737
work_keys_str_mv AT tallaricomarco dothenewhydrophilicsurfacehaveanyinfluenceonearlysuccessrateandimplantstabilityduringosseointegrationperiodfourmonthpreliminaryresultsfromasplitmouthrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT baldininicola dothenewhydrophilicsurfacehaveanyinfluenceonearlysuccessrateandimplantstabilityduringosseointegrationperiodfourmonthpreliminaryresultsfromasplitmouthrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT martinollimatteo dothenewhydrophilicsurfacehaveanyinfluenceonearlysuccessrateandimplantstabilityduringosseointegrationperiodfourmonthpreliminaryresultsfromasplitmouthrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT xhanarierta dothenewhydrophilicsurfacehaveanyinfluenceonearlysuccessrateandimplantstabilityduringosseointegrationperiodfourmonthpreliminaryresultsfromasplitmouthrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kimyongjin dothenewhydrophilicsurfacehaveanyinfluenceonearlysuccessrateandimplantstabilityduringosseointegrationperiodfourmonthpreliminaryresultsfromasplitmouthrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT cervinogabriele dothenewhydrophilicsurfacehaveanyinfluenceonearlysuccessrateandimplantstabilityduringosseointegrationperiodfourmonthpreliminaryresultsfromasplitmouthrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT melonisilviomario dothenewhydrophilicsurfacehaveanyinfluenceonearlysuccessrateandimplantstabilityduringosseointegrationperiodfourmonthpreliminaryresultsfromasplitmouthrandomizedcontrolledtrial