Literature DB >> 21414131

A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Titanium-13Zirconium versus Titanium Grade IV small-diameter bone level implants in edentulous mandibles--results from a 1-year observation period.

Bilal Al-Nawas1, Urs Brägger, Henny J A Meijer, Ignace Naert, Rigmor Persson, Alessandro Perucchi, Marc Quirynen, Gerry M Raghoebar, Torsten E Reichert, Eugenio Romeo, Hendrik J Santing, Martin Schimmel, Stefano Storelli, Christiaan ten Bruggenkate, Betty Vandekerckhove, Wilfried Wagner, Daniel Wismeijer, Frauke Müller.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of endosseous dental implants has become common practice for the rehabilitation of edentulous patients, and a two-implant overdenture has been recommended as the standard of care. The use of small-diameter implants may extend treatment options and reduce the necessity for bone augmentation. However, the mechanical strength of titanium is limited, so titanium alloys with greater tensile and fatigue strength may be preferable.
PURPOSE: This randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter study investigated in a split-mouth model whether small-diameter implants made from Titanium-13Zirconium alloy (TiZr, Roxolid™) perform at least as well as Titanium Grade IV implants. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with an edentulous mandible received one TiZr and one Ti Grade IV small-diameter bone level implant (3.3 mm, SLActive®) in the interforaminal region. The site distribution was randomized and double-blinded. Outcome measures included change in radiological peri-implant bone level from surgery to 12 months post-insertion (primary), implant survival, success, soft tissue conditions, and safety (secondary).
RESULTS: Of 91 treated patients, 87 were available for the 12-month follow-up. Peri-implant bone level change (-0.3 ± 0.5 mm vs -0.3 ± 0.6 mm), plaque, and sulcus bleeding indices were not significantly different between TiZr and Ti Grade IV implants. Implant survival rates were 98.9 percent and 97.8 percent, success rates were 96.6 percent and 94.4 percent, respectively. Nineteen minor and no serious adverse events were related to the study devices.
CONCLUSION: This study confirms that TiZr small-diameter bone level implants provide at least the same outcomes after 12 months as Ti Grade IV bone level implants. The improved mechanical properties of TiZr implants may extend implant therapy to more challenging clinical situations.
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21414131     DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00324.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res        ISSN: 1523-0899            Impact factor:   3.932


  25 in total

1.  Comparison between inflammation-related markers in peri-implant crevicular fluid and clinical parameters during osseointegration in edentulous jaws.

Authors:  Amália M Bielemann; Raissa M Marcello-Machado; Fábio Renato Manzolli Leite; Frederico Canato Martinho; Otacílio Luiz Chagas-Júnior; Altair Antoninha Del Bel Cury; Fernanda Faot
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Retrospective Clinical Study of Marginal Bone Level Changes with Two Different Screw-Implant Types: Comparison Between Tissue Level (TE) and Bone Level (BL) Implant.

Authors:  Vinay V Kumar; Keyvan Sagheb; Peer W Kämmerer; Bilal Al-Nawas; Wilfried Wagner
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2013-06-11

3.  How dental team members describe adverse events.

Authors:  Peter Maramaldi; Muhammad F Walji; Joel White; Jini Etolue; Maria Kahn; Ram Vaderhobli; Japneet Kwatra; Veronique F Delattre; Nutan B Hebballi; Denice Stewart; Karla Kent; Alfa Yansane; Rachel B Ramoni; Elsbeth Kalenderian
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 3.634

4.  Two versus three narrow-diameter implants with locator attachments supporting mandibular overdentures: a two-year prospective study.

Authors:  Ali M El-Sheikh; Omar F Shihabuddin; Sahar M F Ghoraba
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2012-06-18

Review 5.  WITHDRAWN: Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants.

Authors:  Marco Esposito; Yasmin Ardebili; Helen V Worthington
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-10

Review 6.  Narrow-diameter implants: are they a predictable treatment option? A literature review.

Authors:  José-Luis Sierra-Sánchez; Amparo Martínez-González; Fernando García-Sala Bonmatí; José-Félix Mañes-Ferrer; Alejandro Brotons-Oliver
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2014-01-01

7.  The influence of saliva pH value on the retention and durability of bar-clip attachments.

Authors:  Antonio Sergio Silva; Carlos Aroso; Raul Ustrell; Ana Cristina Braga; Jose Manuel Mendes; Tomas Escuin
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 1.904

Review 8.  Bone loss-related factors in tissue and bone level dental implants: a systematic review of clinical trials.

Authors:  Hamed Mortazavi; Amin Khodadoustan; Aida Kheiri; Lida Kheiri
Journal:  J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2021-06-30

9.  Current knowledge about the hydrophilic and nanostructured SLActive surface.

Authors:  Ann Wennerberg; Silvia Galli; Tomas Albrektsson
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2011-09-05

10.  Small-diameter titanium grade IV and titanium-zirconium implants in edentulous mandibles: five-year results from a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Frauke Müller; Bilal Al-Nawas; Stefano Storelli; Marc Quirynen; Stefan Hicklin; Jose Castro-Laza; Renzo Bassetti; Martin Schimmel
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 2.757

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.