Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Evaluation of Implants with Different Surface Treatments Placed in Human Edentulous Mandibles: A 1-Year Prospective Study

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aims of this study were to analyze prospectively and comparatively the peri-implant bone crest levels, bone density, stability and success rate of implants with different surface treatments in human edentulous mandibles. Twenty edentulous patients were selected. Four different implants were placed between the mental foramen. Four groups were evaluated: (1) laser-modified surface (LASER), (2) surface modified by laser with deposition of apatites (LASER + HA), (3) surface modified by double acid etching (ACID, Implacil De Bortoli) and (4) surface modified by sandblasting and acid etching (SLActive®, Straumann). Clinical, radiographic, resonance frequency and tomographic analyses were used. After 4 months, mandibular fixed implant prostheses were installed. Clinical and radiographic analyses were performed at times T0 (immediately after implant placement), T1 (15 days), T2 (30 days), T3 (60 days), T4 (90 days), T5 (120 days), T6 (180 days) and T7 (360 days), post-implant placement. The resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was measured at T0, T4, T6 and T7. The tomographic analysis was performed at T0, T4 and T7. In the radiographic bone density analysis, a statistical difference was found between the SLActive® and LASER + HA groups at T4 (p < 0.05). Statistical differences were observed in RFA at T4 (90 days), between the SLActive® and LASER groups (p < 0.05) and between the SLActive® and LASER + HA groups (p < 0.05). At T6 and T7, statistical differences were found between the SLActive® group and all other implant surfaces (p < 0.01). The experimental surfaces analyzed showed encouraging positive outcomes compared to those of the SLActive® surface. Long-term follow-up should be performed to confirm these results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T (2009) Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:172–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Hamdan SH, Al-Hamdan K, Junker R et al (2012) Effect of implant surface properties on peri-implant bone healing: implant stability and microcomputed tomographic analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:77–83

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Insua A, Monje A, Wang HL et al (2017) Basis of bone metabolism around dental implants during osseointegration and peri-implant bone loss. J Biomed Mater Res A 105:2075–2089

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bedrossian E, Sullivan RM, Fortin Y et al (2008) Fixed-prosthetic implant restoration of the edentulous maxilla: a systematic pretreatment evaluation method. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66:112–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhao K, Mai QQ, Wang XD et al (2013) Occlusal designs on masticatory ability and patient satisfaction with complete denture: a systematic review. J Dent 41:1036–1042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Peck CC (2016) Biomechanics of occlusion–implications for oral rehabilitation. J Oral Rehabil 43:205–214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Moradpoor H, Salari F, Ebadian B et al (2018) Patient satisfaction with occlusal scheme of conventional complete dentures: a randomised clinical trial (Part II). J Oral Rehabil 45:702–709

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Troiano G, Lo Russo L, Canullo L et al (2018) Early and late implant failure of submerged versus non-submerged implant healing: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. J Clin Periodontol 45:613–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Falco A, Berardini M, Trisi P (2018) Correlation between implant geometry, implant surface, insertion torque, and primary stability: in vitro biomechanical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33:824–830

  10. Guastaldi FP, Yoo D, Marin C, et al (2003) Plasma treatment maintains surface energy of the implant surface and enhances osseointegration. Int J Biomater 1–6

  11. Queiroz TP, Souza FA, Guastaldi AC et al (2013) Commercially pure titanium implants with surfaces modified by laser beam with and without chemical deposition of apatite. Biomechanical and topographical analysis in rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res 24:896–903

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Souza FA, Queiroz TP, Guastaldi AC et al (2013) Comparative in vivo study of commercially pure Ti implants with surfaces modified by laser with and without silicate deposition: biomechanical and scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Biomed Mater Res B 101:76–84

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Faeda RS, Tavares HS, Sartori R et al (2009) Biological performance of chemical hydroxyapatite coating associated with implant surface modification by laser beam: biomechanical study in rabbit tibias. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:1706–1715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mistry S, Roy S, Jyoti Maitra N et al (2016) Safety and efficacy of additive and subtractive surface modification of Ti6Al4V endosseous implant in goat bone. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 57:69–87

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Braga FJC, Marques RFC, Almeida Filho E et al (2007) Surface modification of Ti dental implants by Nd:YVO4 laser irradiation. Appl Surf Sci 253:9203–9208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Faeda RS, Spin-Neto R, Marcantonio E et al (2012) Laser ablation in titanium implants followed by biomimetic hydroxyapatite coating: Histomorphometric study in rabbits. Microsc Res Tech 75:940–948

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sisti KE, de Andrés MC, Johnston D et al (2016) Skeletal stem cell and bone implant interactions are enhanced by LASER titanium modification. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 473:719–725

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bressel TAB, de Queiroz JDF, Gomes Moreira SM et al (2017) Laser-modified titanium surfaces enhance the osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther 8:269

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Almeida KP, Delgado-Ruiz R, Carneiro LG et al (2016) Influence of drilling speed on stability of tapered dental implants: an ex vivo experimental study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 31:795–798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sennerby L, Meredith N (2000) Implant stability measurements using resonance frequency analysis: biological and biomechanical aspects and clinical implications. Periodontol 2008(47):51–66

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sennerby L, Andersson P, Verrocchi D et al (2012) One-year outcomes of Neoss bimodal implants. A prospective clinical, radiographic, and RFA study. Clin Implant Dent R 14:313–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gabay E, Cohen O, Machtei EE (2012) A novel device for resonance frequency assessment of one-piece implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:523–527

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schouten C, Meijer G, Beucken J et al (2009) The quantitative assessment of peri-implant bone responses using histomorphometry and micro-computed tomography. Biomaterials 30:4539–4549

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hsu JT, Huang HL, Chang CH et al (2013) Relationship of three-dimensional bone-to-implant contact to primary implant stability and peri-implant bone strain in immediate loading: microcomputed tomographic and in vitro analyses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:367–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. World Medical Association (2013) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310:2191–2194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Vazquez L, Nizamaldin Y, Combescure C et al (2013) Accuracy of vertical height measurements on direct digital panoramic radiographs using posterior mandibular implants and metal balls as reference objects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42:20110429

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser U et al (2008) Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the preoperative planning of posterior mandibular implants: a prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:81–85

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Smeets R, Stadlinger B, Schwarz F, et al (2016) Impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration. Biomed Res Int 6285620

  29. Queiroz TP, de Molon RS, Souza FA et al (2017) In vivo evaluation of cp Ti implants with modified surfaces by laser beam with and without hydroxyapatite chemical deposition and without and with thermal treatment: topographic characterization and histomorphometric analysis in rabbits. Clin Oral Investig 21:685–699

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sisti KE, de Rossi R, Antoniolli AM et al (2012) Surface and biomechanical study of titanium implants modified by laser with and without hydroxyapatite coating, in rabbits. J Oral Implantol 38:231–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sisti KE, Piattelli A, Guastaldi AC et al (2013) Nondecalcified histologic study of bone response to titanium implants topographically modified by laser with and without hydroxyapatite coating. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 33:689–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Souza FA, Queiroz TP, Sonoda CK et al (2014) Histometric analysis and topographic characterization of cp Ti implants with surfaces modified by laser with and without silica deposition. J Biomed Mater Res B 102:1677–1688

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sisti KE, Garcia IR Jr, Guastaldi AC et al (2006) Analysis of titanium surface irradiated with laser, with and without deposited of durapatite. Acta Circ Bras 21:57–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Oliveira NT, Guastaldi FP, Perrotti V et al (2013) Biomedical Ti-Mo alloys with surface machined and modified by laser beam: biomechanical, histological, and histometric analysis in rabbits. Clin Implant Dent R 15:427–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Queiroz TP, Aguiar SC, Margonar R et al (2015) Clinical study on survival rate of short implants placed in the posterior mandibular region: resonance frequency analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 26:1036–1042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pontes AE, Ribeiro FS, da Silva VC et al (2008) Clinical and radiographic changes around dental implants inserted in different levels in relation to the crestal bone, under different restoration protocols, in the dog model. J Periodontol 79:486–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Laurell L, Lundgren D (2011) Marginal bone level changes at dental implants after 5 years in function: a meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Res 13:19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fernandez-Formoso N, Rilo B, Mora MJ et al (2012) Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone maintenance around tissue level implant and bone level implant: a randomised controlled trial. A 1-year follow-up. J Oral Rehabil 39:830–837

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kinaia BM, Shah M, Neely AL et al (2014) Crestal bone level changes around immediately placed implants: a systematic review and meta-analyses with at least 12 months’ follow-up after functional loading. J Periodontol 85:1537–1548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Aimetti M, Ferrarotti F, Mariani GM et al (2015) Soft tissue and crestal bone changes around implants with platform-switched abutments placed nonsubmerged at subcrestal position: a 2-year clinical and radiographic evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30:1369–1377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Filippi A, Higginbottom FL, Lambrecht T et al (2013) A prospective noninterventional study to document implant success and survival of the Straumann Bone Level SLActive dental implant in daily dental practice. Quintessence Int 44:499–512

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Roccuzzo M, Bonino L, Dalmasso P et al (2014) Long-term results of a three arms prospective cohort study on implants in periodontally compromised patients: 10-year data around sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:1105–1112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. van Velzen FJ, Ofec R, Schulten EA et al (2015) 10-year survival rate and the incidence of peri-implant disease of 374 titanium dental implants with a SLA surface: a prospective cohort study in 177 fully and partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 26:1121–1128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Liedke GS, Spin-Neto R, da Silveira HED et al (2017) Factors affecting the possibility to detect buccal bone condition around dental implants using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:1082–1088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Liedke GS, Spin-Neto R, da Silveira HED et al (2018) Accuracy of detecting and measuring buccal bone thickness adjacent to titanium dental implants-a cone beam computed tomography in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 126:432–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Spin-Neto R et al (2012) Implant image quality in dental radiographs recorded using a customized imaging guide or a standard film holder. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:55–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP; 2014/05626-8). The authors are thankful to Implacil De Bortoli (São Paulo, SP, Brazil) for providing their implants and abutments.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Fernando P. S. Guastaldi and Thallita P. Queiroz have contributed equally to this study.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnosis and Surgery, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Araraquara, SP, Brazil

    Fernando P. S. Guastaldi & Rafael S. Molon

  2. Skeletal Biology Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Thier Research Building, 50 Blossom St, Boston, MA, 513A, USA

    Fernando P. S. Guastaldi

  3. Department of Health Sciences, University Center of Araraquara (UNIARA), Araraquara, SP, Brazil

    Thallita P. Queiroz, Daniela O. Marques, Anne B. S. Santos & Rogerio Margonar

  4. Department of Physical Chemistry, Institute of Chemistry, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Araraquara, SP, Brazil

    Antonio C. Guastaldi

Authors
  1. Fernando P. S. Guastaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thallita P. Queiroz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniela O. Marques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne B. S. Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rafael S. Molon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rogerio Margonar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Antonio C. Guastaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernando P. S. Guastaldi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Dentistry Course of the University of Araraquara (UNIARA, SP, Brazil), protocol #580.879, (Certificate of Presentation for Ethical Appreciation: 24020613.8.0000.5383).

Patient Consent

All patients were informed of the study protocol and agreed to sign the consent form prior to being enrolled in the study. All patients were treated according to the principles embodied in the World Medical Association Helsinki Declaration of 1975 for biomedical research involving human subjects, as revised in 2013 (World Medical Association).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guastaldi, F.P.S., Queiroz, T.P., Marques, D.O. et al. Comparative Evaluation of Implants with Different Surface Treatments Placed in Human Edentulous Mandibles: A 1-Year Prospective Study. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 21, 815–823 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-021-01600-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-021-01600-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation