RCT comparing minimally with moderately rough implants. Part 2: microbial observations

Background Most current implants have a moderately rough surface (compared with older minimally rough “turned” implants) to facilitate osseointegration. This randomized controlled trial (RCT), with split‐mouth design, examined whether this increased surface roughness influenced the initial subgingiv...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research 2012-05, Vol.23 (5), p.625-634
Main Authors: Quirynen, M., Van Assche, N.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
biofilm
Biofilms
Dental Implant-Abutment Design
Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods
Dental Implants
Dental Plaque - microbiology
Dental Restoration Failure
Dentistry
Female
Humans
implant
Jaw, Edentulous - rehabilitation
Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - rehabilitation
Linear Models
Male
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Middle Aged
moderately rough
Nucleic Acid Hybridization
Periodontitis - surgery
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Prospective Studies
Statistics, Nonparametric
subgingival colonization
Surface Properties
surface roughness
Tooth Extraction
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Most current implants have a moderately rough surface (compared with older minimally rough “turned” implants) to facilitate osseointegration. This randomized controlled trial (RCT), with split‐mouth design, examined whether this increased surface roughness influenced the initial subgingival plaque formation. Material and methods Ten fully edentulous and eight partially edentulous patients, all with a history of severe periodontitis, received 4–6 implants (mandible or maxilla). Per jaw, both minimally (turned) and moderately rough (TiUnite) implants (MKIII; Nobel Biocare) were alternated. Also, the healing and final abutments had similar surface characteristics. Subgingival biofilm formation was followed up for 1 year, and samples were analyzed by culture technique, qPCR and checkerboard Results Over the entire period, no statistically significant differences could be detected in subgingival microbiota between the minimally and moderately rough surfaces. In partially edentulous patients, the biofilm matured to a higher concentration of pathogens when compared with fully edentulous patients. The subgingival implant composition and concentration in partially edentulous patients were comparable to the subgingival microbiota along teeth. Conclusion The roughness of the more modern implants did not influence the biofilm formation during the first year of implant loading.
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02255.x