Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh1,2, Reza Amid1,2, Anahita Moscowchi3. 1. Dental Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. a.moscowchi@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study was aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants with the same body design but different collar surface (laser-microtextured vs. not laser-microtextured) after functional loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients (29 females, 14 males) with 139 implants (60 laser-microtextured and 79 without laser microtexturing) were included in this study. Patients were consecutively included, and the data were collected during their implant maintenance visit. Clinical and radiographic parameters including probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP), and marginal bone loss (MBL) were recorded. In addition, the implant success index (ISI) score was determined. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, the Kruskal-Wallis rank test, or the Pearson χ2 test, along with binary logistic regression (p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant). RESULTS: The median post-loading follow-up was 24 months with 100% survival rate. There was no significant differences in terms of mean PD (3.01 mm vs. 2.63 mm), mean MBL (0.54 vs. 0.49 mm), BoP (56.7% vs. 53.2%), and ISI score between laser-microtextured collars and implants without laser microtexturing. Logistic regression revealed arch as a significant predictor of peri-implantitis (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, there was no statistically significant difference between the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants with laser-microtextured and non-laser-microtextured collar designs. Clinical relevance Prospective studies with larger sample sizes and careful monitoring of implant placement protocols are needed for definite conclusions.
OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study was aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants with the same body design but different collar surface (laser-microtextured vs. not laser-microtextured) after functional loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients (29 females, 14 males) with 139 implants (60 laser-microtextured and 79 without laser microtexturing) were included in this study. Patients were consecutively included, and the data were collected during their implant maintenance visit. Clinical and radiographic parameters including probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP), and marginal bone loss (MBL) were recorded. In addition, the implant success index (ISI) score was determined. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, the Kruskal-Wallis rank test, or the Pearson χ2 test, along with binary logistic regression (p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant). RESULTS: The median post-loading follow-up was 24 months with 100% survival rate. There was no significant differences in terms of mean PD (3.01 mm vs. 2.63 mm), mean MBL (0.54 vs. 0.49 mm), BoP (56.7% vs. 53.2%), and ISI score between laser-microtextured collars and implants without laser microtexturing. Logistic regression revealed arch as a significant predictor of peri-implantitis (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, there was no statistically significant difference between the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants with laser-microtextured and non-laser-microtextured collar designs. Clinical relevance Prospective studies with larger sample sizes and careful monitoring of implant placement protocols are needed for definite conclusions.
Authors: Fernando Suárez-López Del Amo; Guo-Hao Lin; Alberto Monje; Pablo Galindo-Moreno; Hom-Lay Wang Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2016-01-16 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Adeeb N Alomrani; Joachim S Hermann; Archie A Jones; Daniel Buser; John Schoolfield; David L Cochran Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Myron Nevins; Marcelo Camelo; Marc L Nevins; Peter Schupbach; David M Kim Journal: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Avi E Stein; Edwin A McGlmphy; William M Johnston; Peter E Larsen Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: G Zhao; Z Schwartz; M Wieland; F Rupp; J Geis-Gerstorfer; D L Cochran; B D Boyan Journal: J Biomed Mater Res A Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 4.396
Authors: Pilar Valderrama; Archie A Jones; Thomas G Wilson; Frank Higginbottom; John D Schoolfield; Ronald E Jung; Marcel Noujeim; David L Cochran Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.804