Prevalence of Peri-Implantitis in Implants with Turned and Rough Surfaces: a Systematic Review

Overview

Journal J Oral Maxillofac Res

Date 2019 May 10

PMID 31069039

Citations 11

Authors

Nikola Saulacic

Benoit Schaller

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Moderately-rough implant surface may improve implant therapy in terms of bone integration, but the increased surface roughness might affect the initiation and development of peri-implantitis. The aim of the present review was to compare the prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants with rough and turned (machined) implant surfaces.

Material And Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for articles published between 1 January 1990 and 1 March 2018. Clinical human studies in the English language that had reported on prevalence of peri-implantitis in tuned and rough surface implants were searched. The initial search resulted in 690 articles.

Results: Eight articles with 2992 implants were included in the systematic review. The incidence of peri-implantitis for two implant surfaces varied between studies. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to the heterogeneity among studies. Implant with rough surfaces were more favourable for plaque accumulation during short-term follow-up. On a long-term, turned implants surfaces were associated with more plaque and higher peri-implant bone loss. Peri-implant clinical parameters and survival rate for two implant surfaces was similar.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, rough implant surface does not seem to increase the incidence of peri-implantitis in comparison to turned implants surface.

Citing Articles

In Vitro Bacterial Growth on Titanium Surfaces Treated with Nanosized Hydroxyapatite.

Holmstrom M, Esko S, Danielsson K, Kjellin P J Funct Biomater. 2025; 16(2).

PMID: 39997600 PMC: 11856866. DOI: 10.3390/jfb16020066.

Influence of Implant Surfaces on Peri-Implant Diseases - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Hussein A, Shah M, Atieh M, Alhimairi S, Amir-Rad F, Elbishari H Int Dent J. 2024; 75(1):75-85.

PMID: 39532569 PMC: 11806302. DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2024.10.007.

Nanotopography and oral bacterial adhesion on titanium surfaces: in vitro and in vivo studies.

Schwartz-Filho H, Martins T, Sano P, Araujo M, Chan D, Saldanha N Braz Oral Res. 2024; 38:e021.

PMID: 38477807 PMC: 11376621. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0021.

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.

Effects of a ZnCuO-Nanocoated Ti-6Al-4V Surface on Bacterial and Host Cells.

Dabbah K, Perelshtein I, Gedanken A, Houri-Haddad Y, Feuerstein O Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(7).

PMID: 35407847 PMC: 8999654. DOI: 10.3390/ma15072514.

References

Tonetti M . Risk factors for osseodisintegration. Periodontol 2000. 1999; 17:55-62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00123.x. View

Esposito M, Thomsen P, Ericson L, Lekholm U . Histopathologic observations on early oral implant failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14(6):798-810. View

Lang N, Wilson T, Corbet E . Biological complications with dental implants: their prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 11 Suppl 1:146-55. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011s1146.x. View

van Steenberghe D, Naert I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M . Influence of inflammatory reactions vs. occlusal loading on peri-implant marginal bone level. Adv Dent Res. 2001; 13:130-5. DOI: 10.1177/08959374990130010201. View

Gotfredsen K, Karlsson U . A prospective 5-year study of fixed partial prostheses supported by implants with machined and TiO2-blasted surface. J Prosthodont. 2001; 10(1):2-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2001.00002.x. View

Moberg L, Kondell P, Sagulin G, Bolin A, Heimdahl A, Gynther G . Brånemark System and ITI Dental Implant System for treatment of mandibular edentulism. A comparative randomized study: 3-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12(5):450-61. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120504.x. View

Quirynen M, Peeters W, Naert I, Coucke W, van Steenberghe D . Peri-implant health around screw-shaped c.p. titanium machined implants in partially edentulous patients with or without ongoing periodontitis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12(6):589-94. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120606.x. View

Zitzmann N, Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J . Soft tissue reactions to plaque formation at implant abutments with different surface topography. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol. 2002; 29(5):456-61. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2002.290511.x. View

Hardt C, Grondahl K, Lekholm U, Wennstrom J . Outcome of implant therapy in relation to experienced loss of periodontal bone support: a retrospective 5- year study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002; 13(5):488-94. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130507.x. View

10.

Wennstrom J, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl K, Karlsson S, Lindhe J . Oral rehabilitation with implant-supported fixed partial dentures in periodontitis-susceptible subjects. A 5-year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol. 2004; 31(9):713-24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00568.x. View

11.

Wennerberg A, Ide-Ektessabi A, Hatkamata S, Sawase T, Johansson C, Albrektsson T . Titanium release from implants prepared with different surface roughness. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004; 15(5):505-12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01053.x. View

12.

Pjetursson B, Tan K, Lang N, Bragger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M . A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004; 15(6):667-76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01120.x. View

13.

Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A . Oral implant surfaces: Part 2--review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surfaces. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17(5):544-64. View

14.

Lang N, Berglundh T, Heitz-Mayfield L, Pjetursson B, Salvi G, Sanz M . Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding implant survival and complications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 19 Suppl:150-4. View

15.

Astrand P, Engquist B, Anzen B, Bergendal T, Hallman M, Karlsson U . A three-year follow-up report of a comparative study of ITI Dental Implants and Brånemark System implants in the treatment of the partially edentulous maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005; 6(3):130-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00213.x. View

16.

Mengel R, Flores-de-Jacoby L . Implants in regenerated bone in patients treated for generalized aggressive periodontitis: a prospective longitudinal study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005; 25(4):331-41. View

17.

Roos-Jansaker A, Lindahl C, Renvert H, Renvert S . Nine- to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part II: presence of peri-implant lesions. J Clin Periodontol. 2006; 33(4):290-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2006.00906.x. View

18.

DerSimonian R, Kacker R . Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials. 2006; 28(2):105-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004. View

19.

Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M . Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17 Suppl 2:68-81. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01353.x. View

20.

Watzak G, Zechner W, Busenlechner D, Arnhart C, Gruber R, Watzek G . Radiological and clinical follow-up of machined- and anodized-surface implants after mean functional loading for 33 months. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17(6):651-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01275.x. View