Turned, machined versus double-etched dental implants in vivo.

摘要: Background:  Positive effects on the clinical outcome of moderately rough implant surfaces are described. Intercomparison data, however, is rarely found. Purpose:  The aim this study was to compare results two macroscopically identical implants, one with a turned, machined and other an etched surface. Materials Methods:  In retrospective cohort study, included implants followed criteria: standard surgical protocol, >12 months in situ; minimally self-threading surface (Mk IITM Nobel Biocare AB, Goteborg, Sweden], n=210); same macrodesign (3iTM Implant Innovations Inc., Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA], n=151), length ≥ 10 mm. Clinical data success were rated. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) Periotest® (Siemens AG, Bensheim, Germany) measured related corresponding survival rate respective group. Results:  total number 361, which 264 (73%) subject reexamination. RFA Periotest could be recorded 25% implants. Neither clinically relevant nor statistically significant differences between designs found (64 ± 8.6 vs 63 9.7), (−2 3.3 −1 5.1), mean periods (49 months, 95% confidence interval CI]: 46–51 for turned 46 CI: 43–49 double-etched implant). After osteoplastic procedures, significantly higher losses group observed (17 1) period 43 (40–46) (45–48) implants. Conclusion:  No difference different found. A positive effect roughness poor quality bone, but pivotal proof still lacking.