Machined versus rough surface implants, a clinical study: 36-month follow-up

Authors

  • Jorge Alberto Arismendi Universidad de Antioquia
  • Ana Lucía Mesa Private Office
  • Luz Piedad García Universidad de Antioquia
  • Juan Fernando Salgado Universidad de Antioquia
  • Catalina Castaño Universidad de Antioquia
  • Richard Mejía Universidad de Antioquia

Keywords:

Osseointegration, Implants, Titanium

Abstract


Introduction: the implant surface affects the clinical response in terms of osseointegration and should be evaluated in the long term. In the last years, literature has strongly recommended the use of modified surface implants, in order to improve osseointegration. The primary stability is essential to obtain osseointegration and it depends on the micro and macro characteristics of the implant and bone structure. The usage of active surfaces is an advantage, but it does not modify the bone density. The aim of this study is to undertake a clinical and radiographic evaluation between two different groups of implants, machined versus modified surfaces. Methods: a 24 to 36 months clinical and radiographic follow-up was done to two groups of Lifecore® implants, one group with 30 machined implants (Super CAT®), and the other one with 30 modified surface (RBM®) external hex connection and screw type implants. Measurements were taken to determine the bone crest behavior using the implant platform as reference at 24-36 months of function and were compared with the 12 months measurements. Results: in machined implants at 24-36 months, the average marginal bone loss was 1.5 mm. In modified surface implants at 24 months, the average marginal bone loss was 1.4 mm, and at 36 months, the loss was 1.5 mm. Conclusions: there are no statistical significant differences between the two groups of machined and modified implant surface, for single tooth restoration, as it relates to clinical and radiographic follow up.

|Abstract
= 28 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 11 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Jorge Alberto Arismendi, Universidad de Antioquia

Especialista Odontología Integral del Adulto, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Antioquia.  Profesor Asociado, Vicedecano, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia. 

Ana Lucía Mesa, Private Office

 

Odontóloga, Especialista Odontología Integral del Adulto.  Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Antioquia.

Luz Piedad García, Universidad de Antioquia

Odontóloga, estudiante de VI semestre del posgrado Odontología Integral del Adulto, énfasis en Prostodoncia, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Antioquia.

Juan Fernando Salgado, Universidad de Antioquia

Odontólogo, estudiante de VI semestre del posgrado Odontología Integral del Adulto, énfasis en Periodoncia, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Antioquia.

Catalina Castaño, Universidad de Antioquia

Odontóloga, Especialista Odontología Integral del Adulto, énfasis en Periodoncia.  Profesora Asistente, pre y posgrado.  Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Antioquia.

Richard Mejía, Universidad de Antioquia

Odontólogo, Especialista Odontología Integral del Adulto, énfasis en Prostodoncia.  Profesor Asistente, pre y posgrado.  Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Antioquia.

Published

2010-06-08

How to Cite

Arismendi, J. A., Mesa, A. L., García, L. P., Salgado, J. F., Castaño, C., & Mejía, R. (2010). Machined versus rough surface implants, a clinical study: 36-month follow-up. Revista Facultad De Odontología Universidad De Antioquia, 21(2), 159–169. Retrieved from https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/odont/article/view/2238
w

Most read articles by the same author(s)