» Articles » PMID: 27632268

A Double-Blind Randomized Trial Comparing Implants with Laser-Microtextured and Machined Collar Surfaces: Microbiologic and Clinical Results

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2016 Sep 16
PMID 27632268
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of and determine the differences in periodonto-pathogenic microbiota around two types of implant collar surfaces: laser-microtextured (test) vs machined (control).

Materials And Methods: Seventeen patients (11 periodontally healthy, and 6 periodontally compromised) were selected to receive the two different implants, placed randomly, in two edentulous sites. Six months following the surgical placement of the dental implants, subgingival plaque samples were collected using paper points from the peri-implant sulcus and from the sulcus of an adjacent tooth. The presence of five putative periodontal pathogens, namely, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Treponema denticola, and Tannerella forsythensis, was assessed using real-time polymerized chain reaction (RT-PCR). Peri-implant parameters and intraoral radiographs were recorded up to 1 year after abutment connection.

Results: In the main population, and in the periodontally compromised subgroup, the total number of periodontal pathogens around test implant sites was lower than control implant sites and adjacent tooth sites, with a statistically significant difference (P < .05). In periodontally healthy patients, the mean probing pocket depth for the test implant was 1.31 ± 0.51 mm, compared with 2.66 ± 0.83 mm for the control implant, while in periodontally compromised patients, it was 1.61 ± 0.58 mm for the test implant, compared with a mean value of 2.84 ± 1.0 mm for the control implant.

Conclusion: Implants with a laser-microtextured collar surface are not more vulnerable to pathogenic microflora colonization than implants with a machined collar surface. In both of the subgroups of patients (periodontally healthy and periodontally compromised), implants with a laser-microtextured collar surface have a better clinical outcome at 1 year of loading, compared with implants with a machined collar surface.

Citing Articles

Comparative Evaluation of Bone-Implant Contact in Various Surface-Treated Dental Implants Using High-Resolution Micro-CT in Rabbits' Bone.

Zielinski R, Puszkarz A, Pietka T, Sowinski J, Sadowska-Sowinska M, Kolkowska A Materials (Basel). 2024; 17(22).

PMID: 39597220 PMC: 11595991. DOI: 10.3390/ma17225396.


Dental Implants: Modern Materials and Methods of Their Surface Modification.

Sotova C, Yanushevich O, Kriheli N, Grigoriev S, Evdokimov V, Kramar O Materials (Basel). 2023; 16(23).

PMID: 38068127 PMC: 10707035. DOI: 10.3390/ma16237383.


Influence of rough micro-threaded and laser micro-textured implant-neck on peri-implant tissues: A systematic review.

Huraib W, Pullishery F, Al-Ghalib T, Tash Niyazi A, Binhuraib H, El Homossany M Saudi Dent J. 2023; 35(6):602-613.

PMID: 37817785 PMC: 10562115. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.05.025.


Effect of laser-microtexturing on bone and soft tissue attachments to dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Koodaryan R, Hafezeqoran A J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2022; 15(4):290-296.

PMID: 35070185 PMC: 8760382. DOI: 10.34172/joddd.2021.048.


Cold atmospheric plasma coupled with air abrasion in liquid medium for the treatment of peri-implantitis model grown with a complex human biofilm: an in vitro study.

Hui W, Perrotti V, Piattelli A, Ostrikov K, Fang Z, Quaranta A Clin Oral Investig. 2021; 25(12):6633-6642.

PMID: 33893556 PMC: 8602208. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-03949-x.