Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(01): 001-007
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713952
Original Article

Role of New Hydrophilic Surfaces on Early Success Rate and Implant Stability: 1-Year Post-loading Results of a Multicenter, Split-Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial

Marco Tallarico
1   School of Dentistry, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
,
Nicola Baldini
2   Department of Periodontics and Implantology, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
,
Fulvio Gatti
3   Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Unit of Oral Surgery, San Carlo and San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
,
Matteo Martinolli
4   Private Practice in Porto Viro, Porto Viro, Italy
,
Erta Xhanari
1   School of Dentistry, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
,
Silvio Mario Meloni
5   Medical Surgical and Experimental Science Department, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
,
Cervino Gabriele
6   Department of BIOMORF, School of Dentistry, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
,
Lumbau Aurea Immacolata
5   Medical Surgical and Experimental Science Department, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
› Author Affiliations Funding This publication was supported by University funding (L.A.I.): grant FAR2019
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To compare early implant failure and implant stability of one-stage Hiossen ET III implants with its new hydrophilic (NH) surface, compared with Hiossen ET III implants with the sandblasted and acid-etched (SA) surface at 1-year follow-up.

Materials and Methods This study was designed as a split-mouth, multicenter randomized controlled trial aimed to compare SA surface implants (SA group) and NH surface, (NH group). Outcomes were implant and prosthetic survival rates, complications, the insertion torque at implant placement, and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values.

Results Twenty-nine patients (mean age 59.9 ± 11.3 years) were treated and followed up to 1 year after loading. No patient dropped out. Fifty-eight implants (29 SA group and 29 NH group) were placed. No implants or prostheses failed and no complications were experienced during follow-up. The mean insertion torque was 40.5 ± 3.23 (38.17–41.83) Ncm in the SA group and 40.48 ± 3.49 (38.02–41.98) Ncm in the NH group (p = 0.981). There was a statistically significant difference at the second week (T2) with higher values in the NH group (p = 0.041). Similar results were found in the maxilla (p = 0.045), but not in the mandible (p = 0.362). A positive correlation was found between initial insertion torque and ISQ with higher value in the NH group (0.73 vs. 0.66).

Conclusions NH implants are a viable alternative to SA surface, as they seem to avoid the ISQ drop during the bone remodeling phase.

Keywords

dental implants - implant surface - osseointegration - bone quality

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
26 November 2020

© 2020. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Albrektsson T, Chrcanovic B, Östman P-O, Sennerby L. Initial and long-term crestal bone responses to modern dental implants. Periodontol 2000 2017; 73 (01) 41-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Trindade R, Albrektsson T, Tengvall P, Wennerberg A. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials: on mechanisms for buildup and breakdown of osseointegration. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016; 18 (01) 192-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Albrektsson T, Canullo L, Cochran D, De Bruyn H. “Peri-implantitis”: a complication of a foreign body or a man-made “disease”. Facts and fiction. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016; 18 (04) 840-849
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Albrektsson T, Dahlin C, Jemt T, Sennerby L, Turri A, Wennerberg A. Is marginal bone loss around oral implants the result of a provoked foreign body reaction?. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014; 16 (02) 155-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Albrektsson T, Donos N. Working Group 1. Implant survival and complications. The Third EAO consensus conference 2012. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (Suppl. 06) 63-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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
  • 7 Bramanti E, Cervino G, Lauritano F. et al. FEM and Von Mises analysis on prosthetic crowns structural elements: evaluation of different applied materials. ScientificWorldJournal 2017; 2017: 1029574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Anil S, Anand PS, Alghamdi H, Jansen JA. Dental implant surface enhancement and osseointegration. In: Turkyilmez I. ed. Implant Dentistry—A Rapidly Evolving Practice. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2011: 83-87
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Cicciù M, Risitano G, Maiorana C, Franceschini G. Parametric analysis of the strength in the “Toronto” osseous-prosthesis system. Minerva Stomatol 2009; 58 (1-2) 9-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tallarico M, Baldini N, Martinolli M. et al. 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. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (01) 95-101
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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
  • 13 Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Reasons for failures of oral implants. J Oral Rehabil 2014; 41 (06) 443-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 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
  • 15 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
  • 16 Xuereb M, Camilleri J, Attard NJ. Systematic review of current dental implant coating materials and novel coating techniques. Int J Prosthodont 2015; 28 (01) 51-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 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
  • 18 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
  • 19 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
  • 20 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
  • 21 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 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
  • 23 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
  • 24 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
  • 25 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
  • 26 Tallarico M, Vaccarella A, Marzi GC, Alviani A, Campana V. A prospective case-control clinical trial comparing 1- and 2-stage Nobel Biocare TiUnite implants: resonance frequency analysis assessed by Osstell Mentor during integration. Quintessence Int 2011; 42 (08) 635-644
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 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
  • 28 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
  • 29 Heitz-Mayfield LJ. Peri-implant diseases: diagnosis and risk indicators. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35 (Suppl. 08) 292-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 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
  • 31 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
  • 32 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
  • 33 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
  • 34 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
  • 35 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
  • 36 Smeets R, Stadlinger B, Schwarz F. et al. Impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration. BioMed Res Int 2016; 2016: 6285620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Faot F, Bielemann AM, Schuster AJ. et al. Influence of insertion torque on clinical and biological outcomes before and after loading of mandibular implant-retained overdentures in atrophic edentulous mandibles. BioMed Res Int 2019; 2019: 8132520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Herford AS, Miller M, Lauritano F, Cervino G, Signorino F, Maiorana C. The use of virtual surgical planning and navigation in the treatment of orbital trauma. Chin J Traumatol 2017; 20 (01) 9-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Stacchi C, Lombardi T, Cusimano P. et al. Bone scrapers versus piezoelectric surgery in the lateral antrostomy for sinus floor elevation. J Craniofac Surg 2017; 28 (05) 1191-1196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Lo Giudice G, Cicciù M, Cervino G, Lizio A, Visco AM. Flowable resin and marginal gap on tooth third medial cavity involving enamel and radicular cementum: a SEM evaluation of two restoration techniques. Indian J Dent Res 2012; 23 (06) 763-769
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Cervino G, Terranova A, Briguglio F. et al. Diabetes: oral health related quality of life and oral alterations. BioMed Res Int 2019; 2019: 5907195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Lo Giudice G, Lipari F, Lizio A, Cervino G, Cicciù M. Tooth fragment reattachment technique on a pluri traumatized tooth. J Conserv Dent 2012; 15 (01) 80-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Herford AS. et al. Molecular biomarkers related to oral carcinoma: clinical trial outcome evaluation in a literature review. Dis Markers 2019; 2019: 8040361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Immediate loading with a novel implant featured by variable-threaded geometry, internal conical connection and platform shifting: three-year results from a prospective cohort study. Eur J Oral Implantol 2015; 8 (01) 51-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Arzukanyan AV, Spagnuolo G, Cicciù M. Dental restorative digital workflow: digital smile design from aesthetic to function. Dent J (Basel) 2019; 7 (02) 28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Lavorgna L, Cervino G, Fiorillo L. et al. Reliability of a virtual prosthodontic project realized through a 2d and 3d photographic acquisition: an experimental study on the accuracy of different digital systems. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16 (24) 5139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Laino L, Cicciù M, Fiorillo L. et al. Surgical risk on patients with coagulopathies: guidelines on hemophiliac patients for oro-maxillofacial surgery. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16 (08) 1386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar