Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Eur J Dent. 2019 Feb;13(1):95-101. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1688737. Epub 2019 Jun 6.

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.

Author information

1
Implantology and Prosthetic Aspects, Master of Science in Dentistry Program, Aldent University, Tirana, Albania.
2
Department of Periodontics and Implantology, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
3
Private Practice, University of Padova, Porto Viro, Italy.
4
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Insan Apsun Dental Clinic, South Korea.
5
Department BIOMORF, School of Dentistry, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
6
Department of Surgical, Microsurgical and Medical Science, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
#
Contributed equally

Abstract

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.

Conflict of interest statement

DEUTSCHE OSSTEM GmbH donated the implants. However, data belonged to the authors and by no means did the company interfere with the conduct of the trial or the publication of its results.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart, New York Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center