Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2019; 13(01): 095-101
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688737
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

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

Marco Tallarico
1   Implantology and Prosthetic Aspects, Master of Science in Dentistry Program, Aldent University, Tirana, Albania
,
Nicola Baldini
2   Department of Periodontics and Implantology, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
,
Matteo Martinolli
3   Private Practice, University of Padova, Porto Viro, Italy
,
Erta Xhanari
1   Implantology and Prosthetic Aspects, Master of Science in Dentistry Program, Aldent University, Tirana, Albania
,
Yong-Jin Kim
4   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Insan Apsun Dental Clinic, South Korea
,
Gabriele Cervino
5   Department BIOMORF, School of Dentistry, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
,
Silvio Mario Meloni
6   Department of Surgical, Microsurgical and Medical Science, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 June 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints
Zoom Image

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study is to compare the implant stability of Hiossen ET III implants with its new hydrophilic (NH) surface and Hiossen ET III implants with the sandblasted and acid-etched (SA) surface.

Materials and Methods Patients required at least two teeth to be rehabilitated with a fixed, implant-supported restoration, consecutively enrolled. Patients randomly received SA surface implants (SA group) or SA implants with a newly developed bioabsorbable apatite nanocoating (NH group). Outcome measures were implant and prosthetic survival rate, complications, insertion torque, and implant stability quotient (ISQ) measured at implant placement and every week up to 8 weeks after implant placement. Comparison between groups was made by unpaired t-test, while the comparison between each follow-up will be made by paired t-tests to detect any change during the follow-up. Complications and failures were compared using Fisher's exact test.

Results A total of 14 patients were treated with 28 implants (14 SA and 14 NH). No implant and prosthesis failed 4 months after implant placement. No complications were experienced. At the 2nd week after implants placement, two implants in the SA group showed discontinuous measurements versus none in the NH group (p = 0.4815). Implants unscrewed during ISQ measurements and were rescrewed. Data recording stopped for 6 weeks. Both implants osseointegrated without any further complication. The NH implants did not show physiological ISQ decrease between 2nd and 4th week after implant placement, showing a more even pattern of ISQ values compared with SA implants (77.1 ± 4.6 vs. 72.9 ± 11.5; difference: 4.2 ± 12.1; p = 0.258). High ISQ values were found in both groups at each time point.

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

Keywords

dental implant - early loading - implant stability quotient - implant surface - osseointegration