OBJECTIVES: To compare gingival tissue healing at surgically manipulated periodontal sites and at sites receiving implants and healing abutments with machined (MS) vs laser-microtextured (LMS) surface placed with one-stage protocol. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-four non-smoking patients each received two implants with one-stage protocol in a split-mouth design on the same jaw. In each patient, one implant with a MS collar and one immediate healing abutment with a MS, and one implant with a LMS collar and one immediate healing abutment with a LMS were used. Soft tissues healing at surgically manipulated periodontal tissues (T+) and at non-surgically manipulated periodontal tissues (T-) at MS implant sites and at LMS implant sites were compared by means of clinical and biochemical parameters at baseline and at 1-2-3-4-6-8 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: PD and BoP mean values were statistically higher in MS than LMS implant sites (p<0.05). During early healing phase (1-4 weeks), MS and LMS peri-implant tissues and periodontal tissues at T(+) showed no statistically significant difference in crevicular fluid volume changes (p>0.05). Between 6 and 12 weeks, compared with T(+), no statistically significant difference in crevicular fluid volume and IL-6 and IL-1β concentrations was noted in LMS implant sites (p>0.05), while statistically significantly higher mean values were noted in MS implant sites (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with T(+) and T(-), both MS and LMS implant sites presented a higher pro-inflammatory state in the early phase after surgery (1-4 weeks). At 12 weeks, only MS implant sites kept a higher pro-inflammatory state, while at LMS implant sites, it becomes similar to T(+) and T(-).
OBJECTIVES: To compare gingival tissue healing at surgically manipulated periodontal sites and at sites receiving implants and healing abutments with machined (MS) vs laser-microtextured (LMS) surface placed with one-stage protocol. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-four non-smoking patients each received two implants with one-stage protocol in a split-mouth design on the same jaw. In each patient, one implant with a MS collar and one immediate healing abutment with a MS, and one implant with a LMS collar and one immediate healing abutment with a LMS were used. Soft tissues healing at surgically manipulated periodontal tissues (T+) and at non-surgically manipulated periodontal tissues (T-) at MS implant sites and at LMS implant sites were compared by means of clinical and biochemical parameters at baseline and at 1-2-3-4-6-8 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: PD and BoP mean values were statistically higher in MS than LMS implant sites (p<0.05). During early healing phase (1-4 weeks), MS and LMS peri-implant tissues and periodontal tissues at T(+) showed no statistically significant difference in crevicular fluid volume changes (p>0.05). Between 6 and 12 weeks, compared with T(+), no statistically significant difference in crevicular fluid volume and IL-6 and IL-1β concentrations was noted in LMS implant sites (p>0.05), while statistically significantly higher mean values were noted in MS implant sites (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with T(+) and T(-), both MS and LMS implant sites presented a higher pro-inflammatory state in the early phase after surgery (1-4 weeks). At 12 weeks, only MS implant sites kept a higher pro-inflammatory state, while at LMS implant sites, it becomes similar to T(+) and T(-).