Citation Information :
Mahesh L, Agarwal A, Guirado JC, Bali P, Poonia N. Survival of Implants after Indirect Maxillary Sinus Elevation Procedure: A Two Years Longitudinal Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (4):504-507.
Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the survival rate of two diverse implant systems with different implant surfaces with the same geometrical design.
Materials and methods: One hundred fifty patients were included in the study in which 95 were males and 55 were females and 150 implants were placed using indirect sinus floor elevation technique and only one implant was placed in each subject and they were categorized into two groups of 100 in group A and 50 in group B as per two different implant systems. At review appointments, implants were tested clinically and radiographically and were examined for signs of infection. The patients were examined periodically after placement of the implants, and follow-up was conducted annually.
Results: Results of the Chi-square analysis showed no significant association between the type of implant surface and rate of success or failure of the implant. There was no significant difference between the observed and expected frequency of successful implants in group A as well as group B, indicating that the surface type of implant had no significant association with the success of the implant in group A and B.
Conclusion: To date, there is no consensus in the literature regarding the best surface and even on the macrotopography of the implants for better osseointegration. However, Surface treatments improve the result of osseointegration, especially in the early stages, benefiting bone affixation with qualitative and quantitative enhancements. In the present study, we achieved clinical success with both kinds of implant surfaces however Bioetched implant surface showed promising results comparable to Tiunite surface of Nobel BioCare Implants. In the future, more case-controlled studies with longer follow-up are needed to validate the results of the present findings.
Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, et al. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012:23:2-21.
Lefever D, Van Assche N, Temmerman A, et al. Aetiology, microbiology and therapy of periapical lesions around oral implants: a retrospective analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2013: 40:296-302.
Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique. Compendium 1994;15 (2):152:154-156,158 passim; quiz 162
Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 1 — review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17(5):536-543.
Coelho PG, Granjeiro JM, Romanos GE, Suzuki M, Silva NR, Cardaropoli G, et al. Basic research methods and current trends of dental implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;88:579-596.
Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 2–review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:544-564.
Bernardes SR, Claudino M, Sartori IAM. Anaìlise fotoelaìstica da uniaÞo de pilar a implantes de hexaìgono externo e interno. Implant News 2006; 3(4):355-359.
Albrektsson T, Dahl E, Enbom L, et al. Osseointegrated oral implants. A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted Nobelpharma implants. J Periodontol 1988;59:287-296.
Eckert SE, Parein A, Myshin HL, et al. Validation of dental implant systems through a review of literature supplied by system manufacturers. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:271-279.
Wennerberg A. On Surface Roughness and Implant Incorporation [thesis]. Göteborg, Sweden: Department of Biomaterials, University of Goteborg, 1996:1-196.
Kasemo B, Lausmaa J. Biomaterial and implant surfaces:on the role of cleanliness, contamination, and preparation procedures J Biomed Mater Res 1988;22(A2 Suppl):145-58.
Healy KE, Ducheyne P. Hydration and molecular preferential absorption on titanium in vitro. Biomaterials 1992;13:553-547.
Klokkevold PR, Johnson P, Dadgostari S, et al. Early endosseous integration enhanced by dual acid etching of titanium: A torque removal study in the rabbit. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:350-357.
Becker W, Becker B, Ricci A, et al. A prospective, multicenter trial comparing one- and two-stage titanium screw shaped fixtures with one-stage plasma-sprayed solid-screw fixtures. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2:159-165.
Åstrand P, Anzén B, Karlsson U, et al. Nonsubmerged implants in the treatment of the edentulous upper jaw: A prospective clinical and radiographic study of ITI implants—Results after 1 year. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2:166-174.
Norton M. Marginal bone levels at single tooth implants with a conical fixture design. The influence of surface macro- and microstructure. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:91-99.
Palmer R, Palmer P, Smith B. A 5-year prospective study of Astra single tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:179-182.
Gotfredsen K, Karlsson U. A prospective 5-year study of fixed partial prostheses supported by implants with a machined and TiO2 blasted surface. J Prosthodont 2001;10:2-7.
Rupp F, Scheideler L, Rehbein D, et al. Roughness induced dynamic changes of wettability of acid etched titanium implant modifications. Biomaterials. 2004;25(7-8):1429-1438.
Sola-Ruiz MF, Perez-Martinez C, Labaig-Rueda C, et al. Behavior of Human Osteoblast Cells Cultured on Titanium Discs in Relation to Surface Roughness and Presence of Melatonin. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(4):823. Published 2017 Apr 13.