Comparative Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss in Surface-treated Hydrophilic Implants vs Moderately Rough Hydrophobic Implants: A Prospective Study
Kamal Vashisht, Sapna Rani
Chemical surface treatment, Crestal bone loss, Implant dentistry, Oral implantology, Osseointegration
Citation Information :
Vashisht K, Rani S. Comparative Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss in Surface-treated Hydrophilic Implants vs Moderately Rough Hydrophobic Implants: A Prospective Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2022; 12 (4):174-180.
Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate and compare the crestal bone loss in surface-treated hydrophilic implants versus moderately rough hydrophobic implants.
Materials and methods: A total of 20 implants were placed in patients, divided into two groups—group I—sandblasted, large grit, acid-etched implant surface (SLA) (sandblast, acid-etched hydrophobic, n = 10) and group II— SLA plus hydrophilic surface treatment (SLA-SH) (sandblast, acid etched hydrophilic, n = 10). Crestal bone loss was evaluated and compared radiographically with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral periapical radiograph (IOPA). CBCT was done at baseline (time of insertion) and 24 weeks after insertion of implants. IOPA radiograph was taken at baseline, 10th and 24th week. The statistical analysis was done using paired t-test to evaluate the change from baseline to follow-up. The intergroup comparison was analyzed using an unpaired t-test to compare the mean crestal bone loss.
Results: Crestal bone loss on mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual when compared using CBCT in both groups at baseline; no significant difference was observed. After 24 weeks of implant placement, a significant difference was observed on all sides in both groups (0.026, 0.008, 0.047, and 0.043, respectively). Intragroup comparison of group I and group II at 24 weeks using CBCT showed a significant difference in crestal bone loss when compared with baseline. On comparison of bone loss through IOPA, group I and II showed statistical differences on the distal side (0.001) at 10 weeks and mesial (0.046) and distal (0.006) sides at 24 weeks.
Conclusion: The bone loss was evident in both groups when compared with the baseline. Surface-treated hydrophilic implants showed less bone loss as compared to moderately rough hydrophobic implants. Surface-treated implants seem to reduce crestal bone loss, so they can be preferred in cases where early loading is required.
Osteointegration: Associated Branemark Osseointegration Centers 2010. Available from: http://www.branemark.com/Osseointegration.html
Schroeder A, van der Zypen E, Stich H, et al. The reactions of bone, connective tissue, and epithelium to endosteal implants with titanium-sprayed surfaces. J Maxillofac Surg 1981;9(1):15–25. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-0503(81)80007-0
Adell R. Tissue integrated prostheses in clinical dentistry. Int Dent J 1985;35(4):259–265.
Sabane AV. Surface characteristics of dental implants: a review. J Indian Acad Dental Special 2011;2(2):18–21. DOI-10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.007
Alla RK, Ginjupalli K, Upadhya N, et al. Surface roughness of implants: a review. Trends Biomat Artif Org 2011;25(3):112–118.
Boyan BD, Lossdörfer S, Wang L, et al. Osteoblasts generate an osteogenic microenvironment when grown on surfaces with rough microtopographies. Eur Cell Mater 2003;24(6):22–27. DOI: 10.22203/ecm.v006a03
Matsuo M, Nakamura T, Kishi Y, et al. Microvascular changes after placement of titanium implants: scanning electron microscopy observations of machined and titanium plasma-sprayed implants in dogs. J Periodontol 1999;70(11):1330–1338. DOI: 10.1902/jop.19184.108.40.2060
Novaes AB Jr, Souza SL, de Oliveira PT, et al. Histomorphometric analysis of the bone-implant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatments placed side by side in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17(3):377–383.
MacDonald DE, Rapuano BE, Deo N, et al. Thermal and chemical modification of titanium-aluminum-vanadium implant materials: effects on surface properties, glycoprotein adsorption, and MG63 cell attachment. Biomaterials 2004;25(16):3135–3146. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.10.029
Braceras I, De Maeztu MA, Alava JI, et al. In vivo low-density bone apposition on different implant surface materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38(3):274–278. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2008.12.016
Cho SA, Park KT. The removal torque of titanium screw inserted in rabbit tibia treated by dual acid etching. Biomaterials 2003;24(20):3611–3617. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00218-7
Wong M, Eulenberger J, Schenk R, et al. Effect of surface topology on the osseointegration of implant materials in trabecular bone. J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29(12):1567–1575. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820291213
Park JY, Davies JE. Red blood cell and platelet interactions with titanium implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11(6):530–539. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011006530.x
Sittig C, Textor M, Spencer ND, et al. Surface characterization of implant materials c.p. Ti, Ti-6Al-7Nb and Ti-6Al-4V with different pretreatments. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1999;10(1):35–46. DOI: 10.1023/a:1008840026907
Eriksson C, Nygren H, Ohlson K. Implantation of hydrophilic an hydrophobic titanium discs in rat tibia: cellular reactions on the surfaces during the first 3 weeks in bone. Biomaterial 2004;25(19):4759–4766. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.12.006
Bornstein MM, Valderrama P, Jones AA, et al. Bone apposition around two different sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implant surfaces: a histomorphometric study in canine mandibles. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19(3):233–241. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01473.x
Qiu Q, Sayer M, Kawaja M, et al. Attachment, morphology, and protein expression of rat marrow stromal cells cultured on charged substrate surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;42(1):117–127. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(199810)42:1<117::aid-jbm15>3.0.co;2-i
Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Iannello G, et al. Sandblasted and acid etched titanium dental implant surfaces systematic review and confocal microscopy evaluation. Materials (Basel) 2019;12(11):1763. DOI: 10.3390/ma12111763
Naje RA, Al-Drobie B, Falah A. A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in the detection of mechanical created peri-implant bone defects. J Res Med Dent Sci 2019;7(1):222–225.
Bornstein MM, Horner K, Jacobs R. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: current concepts, indications and limitations for clinical practice and research. Periodontol 2000 2017;73(1):51–72. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12161
Maghsoudi P, Slot DE, Weijden F. Bone remodeling around dental implants after 1–1.5 years of functional loading: a retrospective analysis of two-stage implants. Clin Exp Dent Res 2022;8(3):680–689. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.574
Gianfreda F, Raffone C, Antonacci D, et al. Early biological response of an ultra-hydrophilic implant surface activated by salts and dry technology: an in-vitro study. Appl Sci 2021;11(3):6120. DOI: 10.3390/app11136120
Long L, Zhang M, Gan S, et al. Comparison of early osseointegration of non-thermal atmospheric plasma functionalized/SLAactive titanium implants surfaces in beagle dogs. Front Bioeng. Biotechnol 2022;10:965248. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.965248
Tallarico M, Baldini N, Gatti F, et al. Role of new hydrophilic surfaces on early success rate and implant stability: 1-year post-loading results of a multicenter, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial. Eur J Dent 2021;5(1):1–7. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713952
Khang W, Feldman S, Hawley CE, et al. A multi-center study comparing dual acid- etched and machined-surfaced implants in various bone qualities. J Periodontol 2001;72(10):1384–1390. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1384
Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, et al. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1(1):11–25.