Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2019; 13(01): 095-101
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688737
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

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

Marco Tallarico
1   Implantology and Prosthetic Aspects, Master of Science in Dentistry Program, Aldent University, Tirana, Albania
,
Nicola Baldini
2   Department of Periodontics and Implantology, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
,
Matteo Martinolli
3   Private Practice, University of Padova, Porto Viro, Italy
,
Erta Xhanari
1   Implantology and Prosthetic Aspects, Master of Science in Dentistry Program, Aldent University, Tirana, Albania
,
Yong-Jin Kim
4   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Insan Apsun Dental Clinic, South Korea
,
Gabriele Cervino
5   Department BIOMORF, School of Dentistry, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
,
Silvio Mario Meloni
6   Department of Surgical, Microsurgical and Medical Science, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 June 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

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.

Keywords

dental implant - early loading - implant stability quotient - implant surface - osseointegration
 

  • References

  • 1 Cicciù M, Cervino G, Milone D, Risitano G. FEM investigation of the stress distribution over mandibular bone due to screwed overdenture positioned on dental implants. Materials (Basel) 2018; 11 (09) E1512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cicciù M, Cervino G, Bramanti E. et al. FEM analysis of mandibular prosthetic overdenture supported by dental implants: evaluation of different retention methods. Comput Math Methods Med 2015; 2015: 943839
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bramanti E, Cervino G, Lauritano F. et al. FEM and Von Mises analysis on prosthetic crowns structural elements: evaluation of different applied materials. Sci World J 2017; 1-7 Article ID 1029574. Available at https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1029574 Accessed on April 20, 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Cicciu M, Bramanti E, Matacena G, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014; 7 (04) 817-825
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cicciù M, Risitano G, Maiorana C, Franceschini G. Parametric analysis of the strength in the “Toronto” osseous-prosthesis system. Minerva Stomatol 2009; 58 (01) (02) 9-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Yi YS, Emanuel KM, Chuang SK. Short (5.0 × 5.0 mm) implant placements and restoration with integrated abutment crowns. Implant Dent 2011; 20 (02) 125-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lauritano F, Runci M, Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Bramanti E, Cicciù M. Three-dimensional evaluation of different prosthesis retention systems using finite element analysis and the Von Mises stress test. Minerva Stomatol 2016; 65 (06) 353-367
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cervino G, Romeo U, Lauritano F. et al. Fem and von mises analysis of OSSTEM ® dental implant structural components: evaluation of different direction dynamic loads. Open Dent J 2018; 12: 219-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tallarico M, Vaccarella A, Marzi GC. Clinical and radiological outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage implant placement: 1-year results of a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2011; 4 (01) 13-20
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Le Guéhennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater 2007; 23 (07) 844-854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Glauser R, Sennerby L, Meredith N. et al. Resonance frequency analysis of implants subjected to immediate or early functional occlusal loading. Successful vs. failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15 (04) 428-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Toyoshima T, Wagner W, Klein MO, Stender E, Wieland M, Al-Nawas B. Primary stability of a hybrid self-tapping implant compared to a cylindrical non-self-tapping implant with respect to drilling protocols in an ex vivo model. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011; 13 (01) 71-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Renvert S, Polyzois I, Claffey N. How do implant surface characteristics influence peri-implant disease?. J Clin Periodontol 2011; 38 (Suppl. 11) 214-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dohan Ehrenfest DM, Coelho PG, Kang BS, Sul YT, Albrektsson T. Classification of osseointegrated implant surfaces: materials, chemistry and topography. Trends Biotechnol 2010; 28 (04) 198-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Piattelli A, Cosci F, Scarano A, Trisi P. Localized chronic suppurative bone infection as a sequel of peri-implantitis in a hydroxyapatite-coated dental implant. Biomaterials 1995; 16 (12) 917-920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Payne AG, Tawse-Smith A, Duncan WD, Kumara R. Conventional and early loading of unsplinted ITI implants supporting mandibular overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13 (06) 603-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Lussi A, Higginbottom FL, Buser D. Bone response to unloaded and loaded titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a histometric study in the canine mandible. J Biomed Mater Res 1998; 40 (01) 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Khandelwal N, Oates TW, Vargas A, Alexander PP, Schoolfield JD, Alex McMahan C. Conventional SLA and chemically modified SLA implants in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus--a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24 (01) 13-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lee JT, Cho SA. Biomechanical evaluation of laser-etched Ti implant surfaces vs. chemically modified SLA Ti implant surfaces: removal torque and resonance frequency analysis in rabbit tibias. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2016; 61: 299-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R. et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1977; 16: 1-132
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Makary C, Rebaudi A, Sammartino G, Naaman N. Implant primary stability determined by resonance frequency analysis: correlation with insertion torque, histologic bone volume, and torsional stability at 6 weeks. Implant Dent 2012; 21 (06) 474-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Szmukler-Moncler S, Salama H, Reingewirtz Y, Dubruille JH. Timing of loading and effect of micromotion on bone-dental implant interface: review of experimental literature. J Biomed Mater Res 1998; 43 (02) 192-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lioubavina-Hack N, Lang NP, Karring T. Significance of primary stability for osseointegration of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17 (03) 244-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Brånemark PI, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson BO, Lindström J, Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1969; 3 (02) 81-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Junker R, Dimakis A, Thoneick M, Jansen JA. Effects of implant surface coatings and composition on bone integration: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20 (Suppl. 04) 185-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rupp F, Liang L, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Scheideler L, Hüttig F. Surface characteristics of dental implants: a review. Dent Mater 2018; 34 (01) 40-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Heitz-Mayfield LJ. Peri-implant diseases: diagnosis and risk indicators. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35 (08) Suppl 292-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Brett PM, Harle J, Salih V. et al. Roughness response genes in osteoblasts. Bone 2004; 35 (01) 124-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Braceras I, Alava JI, Oñate JI. et al. Improved osseointegration in ion implantation-treated dental implants. Surf Coat Tech 2002; 158–159: 28-32
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Schwarz F, Herten M, Sager M, Wieland M, Dard M, Becker J. Histological and immunohistochemical analysis of initial and early osseous integration at chemically modified and conventional SLA titanium implants: preliminary results of a pilot study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18 (04) 481-488
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Long MW, Robinson JA, Ashcraft EA, Mann KG. Regulation of human bone marrow-derived osteoprogenitor cells by osteogenic growth factors. J Clin Invest 1995; 95 (02) 881-887
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Reilly TM, Seldes R, Luchetti W, Brighton CT. Similarities in the phenotypic expression of pericytes and bone cells. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (346) 95-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Murphy M, Walczak MS, Thomas AG, Silikas N, Berner S, Lindsay R. Toward optimizing dental implant performance: surface characterization of Ti and TiZr implant materials. Dent Mater 2017; 33 (01) 43-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Wennerberg A, Galli S, Albrektsson T. Current knowledge about the hydrophilic and nanostructured SLActive surface. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2011; 3: 59-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Smeets R, Stadlinger B, Schwarz F. et al. Impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration. BioMed Res Int 2016; 2016: 6285620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar