International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  14 (2024)
Volume  13 (2023)
Volume  12 (2022)
Volume  11 (2021)
Volume  10 (2020)
Volume  9 (2019)
Volume  8 (2018)
Volume  7 (2017)
Volume  6 (2016)
Volume  5 (2015)
Volume  4 (2014)
Volume  3 (2013)
Volume  2 (2012)
Volume  1 (2011)
Related articles

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Different Surface Treatments on Soft Tissue Changes and Inflammatory Markers of Osseointegrated Implants: A Clinical Study

Kamal Vashisht, Sapna Rani, Gaurav Issar

Keywords : Inflammatory marker, Implant surface treatment, Sandblasted, acid etched treatment implants, Soft tissue parameter, Superhydrophilic implants

Citation Information : Vashisht K, Rani S, Issar G. Comparative Evaluation of Different Surface Treatments on Soft Tissue Changes and Inflammatory Markers of Osseointegrated Implants: A Clinical Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2023; 13 (3):170-176.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1421

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-09-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the soft tissue changes and inflammatory markers with two different surface-treated implants. Materials and methods: A total of 20 patients were randomly divided into two groups; group I—implants with sandblasted, large-grit, acid etched treatment (SLA) and group II—implants with SLA with superhydrophilic treatment (mSLA). Soft tissue changes [probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP)] and inflammatory marker [interleukin-6 (IL-6)] count were evaluated and compared after 16 and 24 weeks of implant placement. Paired t-test and unpaired t-test were done for intergroup and intragroup comparison. Results: There was no effect of surface treatment on PD, BOP, and IL-1β load. There was a significant increase in PD (p < 0.0001) and inflammatory marker load (p < 0.0001) at 24 weeks when compared to 16 weeks in both implants, while BOP was not found to be significant after 24 weeks. Conclusion: Surface treatment modification for superhydrophilicity does not influence PD and BOP as well as cytokine levels. Probing depth increased significantly after loading irrespective of implant type. Similarly, there was also a significant difference in inflammatory marker load after loading in both implant groups.. Surface treatment didn't influence soft tissue parameters and inflammatory marker load.

HTML PDF Share
  1. 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
  2. Kligman S, Ren Z, Chung CH, et al. The impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration and biofilm formation. J Clin Med 2021;10(8):1641. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10081641
  3. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, et al. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2003;82(3):232–237. DOI: 10.1177/154405910308200316
  4. 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. PMID: 3527955.
  5. Santos Marino J, Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann J, García-Gil I, et al. Clinical evaluation of dental implants with a double acid-etched surface treatment: a cohort observational study with up to 10-year follow-up. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(21):6483. DOI: 10.3390/ma14216483
  6. Velasco-Ortega E, Ortiz-Garcia I, Jiménez-Guerra A, et al. Osseointegration of sandblasted and acid-etched implant surfaces. a histological and histomorphometric study in the rabbit. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22(16):8507. DOI: 10.3390/ijms22168507
  7. Schwarz F, Wieland M, Schwartz Z, et al. Potential of chemically modified hydrophilic surface characteristics to support tissue integration of titanium dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;88(2):544–557. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31233
  8. Ellingsen JE, Thomsen P, Lyngstadaas SP. Advances in dental implant materials and tissue regeneration. Periodontol 2000 2006;41:136–156. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2006.00175.x
  9. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: part 1—review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17(5):536–543.
  10. Linkow LI, Dorfman JD. Implantology in dentistry. A brief historical perspective. N Y State Dent J 1991;57(6):31–35.
  11. Comino-Garayoa R, Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann J, Peláez J, et al. Allergies to titanium dental implants: what do we really know about them? A scoping review. Biology 2020;9(11):404. DOI: 10.3390/biology9110404
  12. Derks J, Tomasi C. Peri-implant health and disease. A systematic review of current epidemiology. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42(Suppl 16):S158–S1171. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12334
  13. Salcetti JM, Moriarty JD, Cooper LF, et al. The clinical, microbial, and host response characteristics of the failing implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12(1):32–42.
  14. Plagnat D, Giannopoulou C, Carrel A, et al. Elastase, alpha2-macroglobulin and alkaline phosphatase in crevicular fluid from implants with and without periimplantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13(3):227–233. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130301.x
  15. Viña-Almunia J, Pellicer-Chover H, García-Mira B, et al. Influence of occlusal loading on peri-implant inflammatory cytokines in crevicular fluid: a prospective longitudinal study. Int J Implant Dent 2020;6(1):71. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-020-00262-2
  16. 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. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1387
  17. Mühlemann HR, Son S. Gingival sulcus bleeding—a leading symptom in initial gingivitis. Helv Odontol Acta 1971;15(2):107–113.
  18. Wassall RR, Preshaw PM. Clinical and technical considerations in the analysis of gingival crevicular fluid. Periodontol 2000 2016;70(1):65–79. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12109
  19. Kim MJ, Kim IH, Chang NH, et al. Long-term evaluation of the prognosis of super hydrophilic surface treated CA implants: a retrospective clinical study. BMC Oral Health 2022;22(1):97. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02142-0
  20. Scarano A, Khater AGA, Gehrke SA, et al. Current status of peri-implant diseases: a clinical review for evidence-based decision making. J Funct Biomater 2023;14(4):210. DOI: 10.3390/jfb14040210
  21. Nettemu SK, Nettem S, Singh VP, et al. Multilevel analysis of site, implant, and patient-level factors with peri-implant bleeding on probing: a cross sectional study. Int J Implant Dent 2021;7(1):77. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00315-0
  22. Rahman SA, Muhammad H, Haque S, et al. Periodic assessment of peri-implant tissue changes: imperative for implant success. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20(2):173–178.
  23. Jepsen S, Berglundh T, Genco R, et al. Primary prevention of peri-implantitis: managing peri-implant mucositis. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42(Suppl 16):S152–S157. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2016.7308
  24. Lang NP, Wetzel AC, Stich H, et al. Histologic probe penetration in healthy and inflamed peri-implant tissues. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5(4):191–201. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050401.x
  25. Heitz-Mayfield LJ. Peri-implant diseases: diagnosis and risk indicators. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35(8 Suppl):292–304. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01275.x
  26. Bielemann AM, Schuster AJ, Possebon APDR, et al. Clinical performance of narrow-diameter implants with hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces with mandibular implant overdentures: 1-year results of a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Imp Res 2022;33(1):21–32. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13851
  27. de Avila ED, van Oirschot BA, van den Beucken JJ. Biomaterial-based possibilities for managing peri-implantitis. J Periodontal Res 2020;55(2):165–173. DOI: 10.1111/jre.12707
  28. Kao RT, Curtis DA, Richards DW, et al. Increased interleukin-1 beta in the crevicular fluid of diseased implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10(6):696–701.
  29. Duruel O, Goyushov S, Yakar N, et al. Possible association between the quantity of peri-implant crevicular fluid, clinical indices, and the dimensions of endosseous implants. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2022;13(3):e3. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2022.13303
  30. Hotchkiss KM, Clark NM, Olivares-Navarrete R. Macrophage response to hydrophilic biomaterials regulates MSC recruitment and T-helper cell populations. Biomaterials 2018;182:202–215. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.08.029
  31. Ataoglu H, Alptekin NO, Haliloglu S, et al. Interleukin-1beta, tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels and neutrophil elastase activity in peri-implant crevicular fluid. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13(5):470–476. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130505.x
  32. Murata M, Tatsumi J, Kato Y, et al. Osteocalcin, deoxypyridinoline and interleukin-1beta in peri-implant crevicular fluid of patients with peri-implantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13(6):637–640. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130610.x
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.