Title: RCT comparing minimally with moderately rough implants. Part 1: clinical observations
Authors: Van Assche, Nele ×
Coucke, W
Teughels, Wim
Naert, Ignace
Cardoso, M V
Quirynen, Marc #
Issue Date: May-2012
Publisher: Munksgaard
Series Title: Clinical oral implants research vol:23 issue:5 pages:617-624
Article number: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02256.x
Abstract: AIM: This 1-year prospective RCT compared the outcome of minimally (turned) and moderately rough (TiUnite(®) ) implant surfaces. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two subgroups of patients were formed; one group (n = 10) where all teeth had been extracted due to severe periodontitis, another group (n = 8) with teeth in the antagonistic jaw with a history of periodontitis and some remaining medium pockets (4-6 mm). Implants (n = 85, 43 turned & 42 TiUnite(®) ) were installed randomly in each patient. After 3-6 months of submerged healing, healing abutments were connected, followed by final abutments 2 weeks later, all with the same surface characteristics as the supporting implant. Peri-implant parameters and intra-oral radiographs were recorded up to 1 year after abutment connection. RESULTS: Two turned implants failed in the partial edentulous group during the initial healing period (CSR: 95%) and none of the TiUnite(®) (CSR: 100%) surface. No statistically significant differences in clinical parameters could be observed between both surfaces. The partial edentulous subgroup showed more bone loss compared to the full edentulous subgroup. CONCLUSION: Moderately rough implants have a similar clinical outcome (at 1 year of loading in periodontitis susceptible patients) compared to minimally rough implants.
ISSN: 0905-7161
Publication status: published
KU Leuven publication type: IT
Appears in Collections:Periodontology
× corresponding author
# (joint) last author

Files in This Item:
File Description Status SizeFormat
64.docxpre-print Published 33KbUnknownView/Open


All items in Lirias are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

© Web of science