» Articles » PMID: 34772010

Clinical Evaluation of Dental Implants with a Double Acid-Etched Surface Treatment: A Cohort Observational Study with Up to 10-Year Follow-Up

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2021 Nov 13
PMID 34772010
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the survival and success rates of dental implants with a double acid-etched surface treatment with evaluation times up to 10 years post-loading. This study was conducted at a hospital oral surgery and implantology unit. It included 111 dental implants with a double acid-etched surface. Three groups were created: Group 1 (1-3 years loading), Group 2 (3-5 years loading), and Group 3 (over 5 years loading). Probing depth, resonance frequency analysis (ISQ value), and marginal bone loss were evaluated. The data obtained underwent statistical analysis. Overall, 78 patients were included in the study, who received, in total, 111 dental implants, all replacing single teeth. Mean probing depth was 3.03 mm and mean ISQ was 65.54. Regarding marginal bone loss, in Group 1, 67.6% of implants did not undergo any thread loss, in Group 2, 48.3%, and in Group 3, 59.6%; 59.10% of all implants did not present thread loss with a mean bone loss of 0.552 mm. The implant survival rate was 99.1%, and the success rate was 96.37%. Implants with a double acid-etched surface showed excellent success rates in terms of marginal bone loss, ISQ, and probing depth after up to 10 years of loading, making them a clinically predictable treatment option. Future studies are needed to compare this implant surface with other types in different restorative situations.

Citing Articles

How to Enhance Dental Implant Therapies and Definitive Restoration Outcomes to Reduce Complications and Improve Patient Well-Being.

Gargallo-Albiol J Materials (Basel). 2023; 16(10).

PMID: 37241357 PMC: 10223492. DOI: 10.3390/ma16103730.


Impact of Platform Switched Implants on Marginal Bone Level in Mandibular Overdentures: A Six-Year Follow-Up Longitudinal Study.

Abd El Rahim N, Ashour A Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2022; 14:307-319.

PMID: 36285194 PMC: 9588294. DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S378636.

References
1.
Barona-Dorado C, Martinez-Rodriguez N, Torres-Lear F, Martinez-Gonzalez J . Observational study of 67 wide platform implants treated with avantblast surface. Results at three year. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2009; 14(4):E183-7. View

2.
Lages F, Douglas-de Oliveira D, Costa F . Relationship between implant stability measurements obtained by insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis: A systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017; 20(1):26-33. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12565. View

3.
Calvo-Guirado J, Lopez-Lopez P, Perez-Albacete Martinez C, Javed F, Granero-Marin J, Mate Sanchez de Val J . Peri-implant bone loss clinical and radiographic evaluation around rough neck and microthread implants: a 5-year study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 29(6):635-643. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12775. View

4.
Penarrocha M, Carrillo C, Boronat A, Marti E . Early loading of 642 Defcon implants: 1-year follow-up. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 65(11):2317-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.04.015. View

5.
Mistry S, Kundu D, Datta S, Basu D . Comparison of bioactive glass coated and hydroxyapatite coated titanium dental implants in the human jaw bone. Aust Dent J. 2011; 56(1):68-75. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01305.x. View