Purpose: To evaluate the crestal bone loss and implant stability quotient trends of photofunctionalised versus untreated implants.
Keywords: crestal bone loss, implant stability, surface treatment
Materials and methods: A total of 34 patients (age 46.94 ± 12.03 years) with bilateral single missing teeth in the same arch were enrolled in this study. Each patient received an untreated implant on one side (control group, n = 34) and a photofunctionalised implant on the contralateral side (test group, n = 34). Crestal bone loss was assessed at the time of crown insertion and 1 year later. The osseointegration speed index was evaluated for both the control and test group. An independent t test was used for intergroup comparisons of crestal bone loss and osseointegration speed index. Bivariate analysis was performed for the confounding variables.
Results: The test group showed a statistically significantly higher osseointegration speed index (3.07) as compared to the control group (1.29) (P < 0.01). Statistically significantly higher crestal bone loss was observed in the control group (−0.57 ± 0.41 mm) as compared to the test group (−0.27 ± 0.35 mm) (P < 0.01). The difference between mean Plaque Index and Bleeding Index in the control (0.74/0.38) and test group (0.73/0.35) was statistically insignificant (P > 0.05). A negative correlation (r = −0.272) was noted between implant diameter and crestal bone loss. A positive correlation (r = 0.402) was observed between implant length and osseointegration speed index.
Conclusion: Implants with photofunctionalised surfaces reduce overall healing time and crestal bone loss. Photofunctionalisation is an effective aid for chairside conditioning of implant surfaces to achieve faster osseointegration with good crestal bone stability.Clin Oral Implants Res 2020;31:1207–1222.
Objective: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of mandibular 2-implant overdentures (IODs) on a CAD-CAM milled bar with long distal extensions (MBDE) against IODs on retentive anchors (RA). Methods: Forty edentulous participants rehabilitated with a maxillary conventional denture and a mandibular 2-IOD participated in this trial. They were randomized into two groups [Control group (CG): RA + gold matrices; Experimental group (EG): MBDE + gold clip]. The outcomes included implant survival rate (ISR), chewing efficiency [quantitative (VoH) and subjective (SA) assessments], peri-implant marginal bone levels (PI-MBL), maximum bite force (MBF), and patient-reported outcomes [oral health impact profile (OHIP-EDENT), and denture satisfaction index (DSI)]. Outcomes were recorded at baseline (BL), two weeks (T0), 6 months (T1), and at 1 year (T2) after the intervention. Intra- and inter-group analyses were performed using regression models with a = 0.05.
Results: 38 participants completed the T2 visit (CG: n = 19, age = 74.7 ± 7.8 years; EG: n = 19, age = 70.3 ± 10.7 years). At T2, there was no implant loss in either of the groups (ISR = 100%). There were no significant differences between the groups for the PI-MBL changes (P = .754). Improvements occurred faster in the EG than in the CG, but over the observation time, there were no differences between the trial groups for VoH, MBF, OHIP-EDENT, and the DSI, except for SA being significantly better in the EG group (P = .022).
Conclusions: The results of this RCT confirm that mandibular 2-IODs with a CAD-CAM milled bar with long distal extensions are not an inferior treatment to the conventional IODs on retentive anchors in the short term (1 year). Correspondence to: email@example.com. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.