Cargando…
The early loading of different surface-modified implants: a randomized clinical trial
BACKGROUND: Various surface treatment options have been adopted with the aim to improve osseointegration, reducing the overall treatment time. Implant stability of early loaded implants with different modified surfaces was compared in the present study. METHODS: Patients were selected from the Depar...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8074492/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33902551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01498-z |
_version_ | 1783684364309102592 |
---|---|
author | Körmöczi, Kinga Komlós, György Papócsi, Petra Horváth, Ferenc Joób-Fancsaly, Árpád |
author_facet | Körmöczi, Kinga Komlós, György Papócsi, Petra Horváth, Ferenc Joób-Fancsaly, Árpád |
author_sort | Körmöczi, Kinga |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Various surface treatment options have been adopted with the aim to improve osseointegration, reducing the overall treatment time. Implant stability of early loaded implants with different modified surfaces was compared in the present study. METHODS: Patients were selected from the Department of Oro-Maxillofacial Surgery and Stomatology at Semmelweis University. Patients randomly received SA (alumina sandblasted and acid-etched), NH (bioabsorbable apatite nanocoating) or SLA (large-grit sandblasted and acid-etched) surface implants. Outcome measures were: implant success, implant stability, and periodontal parameters. The implant stability was measured at the time of implant placement (primary stability) and six weeks after (prothesis delivery, secondary stability). Osstell and Periotest were applied to take all the measurements. The primary and secondary stability were compared in the three study groups Finally the periimplant probing depth appearing after three months of loading was checked on 6 points around to the implant-supported prostheses. Shapiro–Wilk and Mann–Whitney tests were used for the comparison between the study groups. RESULTS: A total of 75 implants with different length and diameter were inserted into various positions. One implant failed spontaneously at the fourth week after implant placement. The survival rate was 98,7%. Comparing the primary and secondary stability values, the data were significantly improved in every groups. The difference was the highest in the NH group, however, this difference was not significant compared to the two other groups. Good periodontal parameters were experienced in all the tested implants, independently by the groups. CONCLUSIONS: With the limitation of the present study, all the implants showed improved stability six weeks after implant placement. A trend of higher result was found for the NH group. Further studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm this preliminary results. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13181677; the date of registration: 04/03/2021. Retrospectively registered. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8074492 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80744922021-04-26 The early loading of different surface-modified implants: a randomized clinical trial Körmöczi, Kinga Komlós, György Papócsi, Petra Horváth, Ferenc Joób-Fancsaly, Árpád BMC Oral Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Various surface treatment options have been adopted with the aim to improve osseointegration, reducing the overall treatment time. Implant stability of early loaded implants with different modified surfaces was compared in the present study. METHODS: Patients were selected from the Department of Oro-Maxillofacial Surgery and Stomatology at Semmelweis University. Patients randomly received SA (alumina sandblasted and acid-etched), NH (bioabsorbable apatite nanocoating) or SLA (large-grit sandblasted and acid-etched) surface implants. Outcome measures were: implant success, implant stability, and periodontal parameters. The implant stability was measured at the time of implant placement (primary stability) and six weeks after (prothesis delivery, secondary stability). Osstell and Periotest were applied to take all the measurements. The primary and secondary stability were compared in the three study groups Finally the periimplant probing depth appearing after three months of loading was checked on 6 points around to the implant-supported prostheses. Shapiro–Wilk and Mann–Whitney tests were used for the comparison between the study groups. RESULTS: A total of 75 implants with different length and diameter were inserted into various positions. One implant failed spontaneously at the fourth week after implant placement. The survival rate was 98,7%. Comparing the primary and secondary stability values, the data were significantly improved in every groups. The difference was the highest in the NH group, however, this difference was not significant compared to the two other groups. Good periodontal parameters were experienced in all the tested implants, independently by the groups. CONCLUSIONS: With the limitation of the present study, all the implants showed improved stability six weeks after implant placement. A trend of higher result was found for the NH group. Further studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm this preliminary results. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13181677; the date of registration: 04/03/2021. Retrospectively registered. BioMed Central 2021-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8074492/ /pubmed/33902551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01498-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Körmöczi, Kinga Komlós, György Papócsi, Petra Horváth, Ferenc Joób-Fancsaly, Árpád The early loading of different surface-modified implants: a randomized clinical trial |
title | The early loading of different surface-modified implants: a randomized clinical trial |
title_full | The early loading of different surface-modified implants: a randomized clinical trial |
title_fullStr | The early loading of different surface-modified implants: a randomized clinical trial |
title_full_unstemmed | The early loading of different surface-modified implants: a randomized clinical trial |
title_short | The early loading of different surface-modified implants: a randomized clinical trial |
title_sort | early loading of different surface-modified implants: a randomized clinical trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8074492/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33902551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01498-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kormoczikinga theearlyloadingofdifferentsurfacemodifiedimplantsarandomizedclinicaltrial AT komlosgyorgy theearlyloadingofdifferentsurfacemodifiedimplantsarandomizedclinicaltrial AT papocsipetra theearlyloadingofdifferentsurfacemodifiedimplantsarandomizedclinicaltrial AT horvathferenc theearlyloadingofdifferentsurfacemodifiedimplantsarandomizedclinicaltrial AT joobfancsalyarpad theearlyloadingofdifferentsurfacemodifiedimplantsarandomizedclinicaltrial AT kormoczikinga earlyloadingofdifferentsurfacemodifiedimplantsarandomizedclinicaltrial AT komlosgyorgy earlyloadingofdifferentsurfacemodifiedimplantsarandomizedclinicaltrial AT papocsipetra earlyloadingofdifferentsurfacemodifiedimplantsarandomizedclinicaltrial AT horvathferenc earlyloadingofdifferentsurfacemodifiedimplantsarandomizedclinicaltrial AT joobfancsalyarpad earlyloadingofdifferentsurfacemodifiedimplantsarandomizedclinicaltrial |