journal article·2024-02-19Open access

A Long-Term Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess Implant Treatment Outcome Using Implants with a Different Surface Roughness

Maarten Glibert, Carine Matthys, Aurélie Van Lancker, Amber Segers, Hugo De Bruyn

Applied Sciences· Volume 14· Issue 4

Abstract

The influence of implant surface roughness on implant treatment outcome is still under debate. A rougher implant surface improves osseointegration but yields greater plaque accumulation and biofilm formation. Hybrid implants have a minimally rough component coronally and a moderately rough implant body. The aim of this split-mouth study is to evaluate the long-term outcome of treatment with hybrid and moderately rough implants after 6 years. As a secondary aim, Oral Health Quality of Life (OHQoL) was assessed after one and six years. Fully edentulous patients received an overdenture supported by two implants. One implant had a hybrid surface (MSC) and one implant had a moderately rough surface (DCC). Radiographic crestal bone loss (CBL), plaque score, bleeding on probing (BoP) and periodontal probing depth (PPD) were determined at one and six years. OHQoL was evaluated using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire and a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Twenty-one patients with 42 implants were evaluated after 6 years. No implants failed and a mean CBL of 0.26 mm (SD: 0.42) for the MSC group and 0.17 mm (SD: 0.29) for the DCC group was observed, which was not statistically significant. Periodontal parameters were comparable after 6 years and a significant improvement in OHQoL was observed. This randomized controlled trial concludes that hybrid implants are a predictable treatment alternative for moderately rough implants in patients with an overdenture supported by two implants.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Dental Radiography and Imaging · Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Oral Health Sciences, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium

Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Oral Health Sciences, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium

Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Oral Health Sciences, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium

Department of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Funding

Southern Implants

References (35)

Show source-provided references
1. The mandibular complete overdenture10.1016/j.cden.2004.03.002 ↗
2. British Society for the Study of Prosthetic Dentistry (2009). The York consensus statement on implant-supported overdentures. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent., 17, 164–165.
3. Management of Edentulous Patients10.1016/j.cden.2018.11.006 ↗
4. A comparative evaluation of chewing efficiency, masticatory bite force, and patient satisfaction between conventional denture and implant-supported mandibular overdenture: An in vivo study10.4103/jips.jips_76_17 ↗
5. Implant Surface Material, Design, and Osseointegration10.1016/j.cden.2014.12.003 ↗
6. On implant surfaces: A review of current knowledge and opinions
7. A 5-year randomized clinical trial comparing minimally with moderately rough implants in patients with severe periodontitis10.1111/jcpe.12901 ↗
8. Impact of implant surface topography: A clinical study with a mean functional loading time of 85 months10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02498.x ↗
9. Long-term retrospective follow-up of turned and moderately rough implants in the edentulous jaw10.1111/clr.12602 ↗
10. A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized-Controlled 5-Year Study of Hybrid and Fully Etched Implants for the Incidence of Peri-Implantitis10.1902/jop.2009.090492 ↗
11. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01353.x ↗
12. The influence of initial soft tissue thickness on peri-implant bone remodeling10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00474.x ↗
13. Long-Term Effect of Surface Roughness and Patients’ Factors on Crestal Bone Loss at Dental Implants. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis10.1111/cid.12457 ↗
14. Initial and long-term crestal bone responses to modern dental implants10.1111/prd.12176 ↗
15. Smeets, R., Stadlinger, B., Schwarz, F., Beck-Broichsitter, B., Jung, O., Precht, C., Kloss, F., Gröbe, A., Heiland, M., and Ebker, T. (2016). Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration. BioMed Res. Int., 2016.10.1155/2016/6285620 ↗
16. Early peri-implant bone loss as a predictor for peri-implantitis: A 10-year prospective cohort study10.1111/cid.13000 ↗
17. A randomized controlled clinical trial assessing initial crestal bone remodeling of implants with a different surface roughness10.1111/cid.12652 ↗
18. Impact of timing of dental implant placement and loading: Summary and consensus statements of group 1—The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 202110.1111/clr.13809 ↗
19. Long-term vertical changes of the anterior maxillary teeth adjacent to single implants in young and mature adults10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00574.x ↗
20. The influence of smoking on the incidence of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1111/clr.14066 ↗
21. Surface characterization of commercial oral implants on the nanometer level10.1002/jbm.b.31538 ↗
22. Radiographic evaluation of modern oral implants with emphasis on crestal bone level and relevance to peri-implant health10.1111/prd.12004 ↗
23. Diagnostic parameters for monitoring peri-implant conditions
24. Campos, L.A., Peltomäki, T., Marôco, J., and Campos, J.A.D.B. (2021). Use of Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) in Different Contexts. What Is Being Measured?. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18.10.3390/ijerph182413412 ↗
25. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x ↗
26. A comparison of patient’s satisfaction between complete and partial removable denture wearers10.1016/S0300-5712(03)00094-0 ↗
27. Health-related quality of life in edentulous patients10.25122/jml-2021-0277 ↗
28. Survival rates of hybrid rough surface implants and their alveolar bone level alterations10.1002/JPER.17-0726 ↗
29. Prospective randomized clinical trial evaluating the effects of two different implant collar designs on peri-implant healing and functional osseointegration after 25 years10.1111/clr.13699 ↗
30. Hybrid and fully-etched surface implants in periodontally healthy patients: A comparative retrospective study on marginal bone loss10.1111/cid.12504 ↗
31. Impact of machined versus structured implant shoulder designs on crestal bone level changes: A randomized, controlled, multicenter study10.1186/s40729-022-00432-4 ↗
32. Crestal Bone Loss and Oral Implants10.1111/cid.12013 ↗
33. Marginal bone loss as success criterion in implant dentistry: Beyond 2 mm
34. Comparison of implant supported mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies10.1111/adj.12416 ↗
35. Yen, Y.-Y., Lee, H.-E., Wu, Y.-M., Lan, S.-J., Wang, W.-C., Du, J.-K., Huang, S.-T., and Hsu, K.-J. (2015). Impact of removable dentures on oral health-related quality of life among elderly adults in Taiwan. BMC Oral Health, 15.10.1186/1472-6831-15-1 ↗