Volume 17, Issue 6 pp. 651-657

Radiological and clinical follow-up of machined- and anodized-surface implants after mean functional loading for 33 months

Georg Watzak

Georg Watzak

Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb Dental School, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Search for more papers by this author
Werner Zechner

Werner Zechner

Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb Dental School, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Search for more papers by this author
Dieter Busenlechner

Dieter Busenlechner

Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb Dental School, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Search for more papers by this author
Christof Arnhart

Christof Arnhart

Bernhard Gottlieb Dental School, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Search for more papers by this author
Reinhard Gruber

Reinhard Gruber

Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb Dental School, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Search for more papers by this author
Georg Watzek

Georg Watzek

Department of Oral Surgery, Dental School, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 07 September 2006
Citations: 33
Correspondence to:
Georg Watzak
Department of Oral Surgery
Dental School
Medical University of Vienna
Waehringerstrasse 25A
A-1090 Vienna
Austria
Tel.: +43 1 4277 67012
Fax: +43 1 4277 67019
e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Abstract: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare peri-implant bone loss and mucosal conditions around machined-surface (MS) and anodized-surface (AS) interforaminal implants in the mandible at least 30 months after placement. Fifty patients, each treated with four interforaminal screw-type implants consecutively, were included. Thirty-one patients (62%) with a total number of 124 implants (64 MS and 60 AS implants, both Brånemark type MKIII) were available for follow-up. Rotational panoramic radiographs were used for evaluating marginal bone loss. Clinically, marginal plaque index (mPI), bleeding on probing (BOP) and pocket probing depth (PPD) were evaluated. AS implants showed significantly less marginal bone loss than MS implants (−1.17±0.13 vs. −1.42±0.13 mm; P=0.03). Marginal bone loss around distal implants was less pronounced at AS implants (−1.05±0.14 mm) when compared with MS implants (−1.46±0.14 mm; P=0.05). Within the smoking group, there was less peri-implant bone loss around AS implants than around MS implants (−1.08±0.27 vs. −1.83±0.2; P=0.04). No differences between MS and AS implants were found with respect to mPI (57% vs. 67%), BOP (21% vs. 17%) and mean PPD (2.59±0.29 vs. 2.56±0.28 mm). Overall, both types of implants, in combination with bar-supported overdentures, can produce excellent long-term results in the interforaminal edentulous mandible with less peri-implant bone loss around rough implant surfaces, which had beneficial effects at distal implants and in smokers.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.