EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

RCT comparing minimally with moderately rough implants. Part 2: microbial observations



RCT comparing minimally with moderately rough implants. Part 2: microbial observations



Clinical Oral Implants Research 23(5): 625-634



Most current implants have a moderately rough surface (compared with older minimally rough "turned" implants) to facilitate osseointegration. This randomized controlled trial (RCT), with split-mouth design, examined whether this increased surface roughness influenced the initial subgingival plaque formation. Ten fully edentulous and eight partially edentulous patients, all with a history of severe periodontitis, received 4-6 implants (mandible or maxilla). Per jaw, both minimally (turned) and moderately rough (TiUnite) implants (MKIII; Nobel Biocare) were alternated. Also, the healing and final abutments had similar surface characteristics. Subgingival biofilm formation was followed up for 1 year, and samples were analyzed by culture technique, qPCR and checkerboard Over the entire period, no statistically significant differences could be detected in subgingival microbiota between the minimally and moderately rough surfaces. In partially edentulous patients, the biofilm matured to a higher concentration of pathogens when compared with fully edentulous patients. The subgingival implant composition and concentration in partially edentulous patients were comparable to the subgingival microbiota along teeth. The roughness of the more modern implants did not influence the biofilm formation during the first year of implant loading.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055333867

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 22093076

DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02255.x



Related references

RCT comparing minimally with moderately rough implants. Part 1: clinical observations. Clinical Oral Implants Research 23(5): 617-624, 2012

5-year RCT comparing minimally with moderately rough implants in patients with severe periodontitis. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2018

Long-term clinical success of minimally and moderately rough oral implants: a review of 71 studies with 5 years or more of follow-up. Implant Dentistry 24(1): 62-69, 2015

Long-term retrospective follow-up of turned and moderately rough implants in the edentulous jaw. Clinical Oral Implants Research 27(4): 421-426, 2015

Evaluation of alumina toughened zirconia implants with a sintered, moderately rough surface: An experiment in the rat. Dental Materials 32(1): 65-72, 2015

Clinical and radiologic experience with moderately rough oxidized titanium implants: up to 10 years of retrospective follow-up. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 29(1): 152-161, 2014

Comparative histomorphometry and resonance frequency analysis of implants with moderately rough surfaces in a loaded animal model. Clinical Oral Implants Research 19(1): 1-8, 2007

A retrospective case report series of clinical outcomes with moderately rough, wide-diameter 8-mm implants in the posterior maxilla. International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry 33(4): E95-100, 2014

Importance of Ca(2+) modifications for osseointegration of smooth and moderately rough anodized titanium implants - a removal torque and histological evaluation in rabbit. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 14(5): 737-745, 2013

Early loading of 6-mm-short implants with a moderately rough surface supporting single crowns--a prospective 5-year cohort study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 26(4): 471-477, 2014

Early loading of single crowns supported by 6-mm-long implants with a moderately rough surface: a prospective 2-year follow-up cohort study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 21(9): 937-943, 2010

Clinical Performance of Dental Implants with a Moderately Rough (TiUnite) Surface: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Clinical Studies. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 32(4): 717-734, 2017

Randomized controlled multicenter study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 2: clinical and radiographic outcomes at 1 year of loading. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 42(11): 1042-1051, 2015

Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 1: demographics and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year of loading. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 42(1): 72-80, 2016

Osseointegration of rough acid-etched implants: one-year follow-up of placement of 100 minimatic implants. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 12(1): 65-73, 1997