Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Adv Prosthodont. 2018 Apr;10(2):85-92. doi: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.2.85. Epub 2018 Apr 18.

Hydroxyapatite-coated implant: Clinical prognosis assessment via a retrospective follow-up study for the average of 3 years.

Author information

1
School of Dentistry, The Graduate School, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
2
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
3
Department of Dentistry & Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
4
Department of Prosthodontics, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
5
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Asan Medical Center, College of Medicine, Ulsan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

This research evaluated clinical outcomes of two types of hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated implants: OT (Osstem TS III-HA, Osstem implant Co., Busan, Korea) and ZM (Zimmer TSV-HA, Zimmer dental, Carlsbad, USA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

The research was conducted on 303 implants (89 of OT, 214 of ZM), which were placed from January 16, 2010 to December 20, 2012. The prognosis was evaluated in terms of success rates, survival rates, annual marginal bone loss, and implant stability quotients (ISQ). The samples were classified into immediate, early, conventional, and delayed groups according to the loading time.

RESULTS:

Overall, there were no significant differences between OT and ZM in success rates, survival rates, and annual marginal bone loss, except for the result of secondary stability. OT showed 77.83 ± 8.23 ISQ, which was marginally higher than 76.09 ± 6.90 ISQ of ZM (P<.05). In terms of healing periods, only immediate loading showed statistically significant differences (P<.05). Differences between OT and ZM were observed in terms of two indices, the annual marginal bone loss (0.17 ± 0.58 mm/year < 0.45 ± 0.80 mm/year) and secondary stability (84.36 ± 3.80 ISQ > 82.48 ± 3.69 ISQ) (P<.05). OT and ZM did not have any statistically significant differences in early, conventional, and delayed loading (P>.05).

CONCLUSION:

OT (97.75%) and ZM (98.50%) showed relatively good outcomes in terms of survival rates. In general, OT and ZM did not show statistically significant differences in most indices (P>.05), although OT performed marginally better than ZM in the immediate loading and 1-stage surgery (P<.05).

KEYWORDS:

Dental implant; Hydroxyapatite coating; Outcome

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center