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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Körmöczi, Kinga, Komlós, György, Papócsi, Petra, Horváth, Ferenc, Joób-Fancsaly, Árpád
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