Andrea Roccuzzo, Isabel Thomann, Amanda Wyss, Silvio Schütz, Thomas Zumstein, Anton Sculean, Giovanni E Salvi, Jean-Claude Imber, Alexandra Stähli
{"title":"Long-Term Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Hydrophilic Implants: A 10-Year Study in a Specialist Private Practice.","authors":"Andrea Roccuzzo, Isabel Thomann, Amanda Wyss, Silvio Schütz, Thomas Zumstein, Anton Sculean, Giovanni E Salvi, Jean-Claude Imber, Alexandra Stähli","doi":"10.1111/cid.13415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To report the 10-year clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants placed in grafted (GBR) and non-grafted (no-GBR) sites in a Swiss specialist private practice using hydrophilic implants with a low surface roughness flange.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty consecutively enrolled patients received 159 hydrophilic implants with a low surface roughness flange. A first re-evaluation was performed 1 year after delivery of restoration (T1). An additional examination was performed at the 10-year follow-up (T2) including the assessment of clinical (i.e., periodontal/peri-implant pockets probing depths (PPD) (mm), full-mouth bleeding score (%), implant survival rate, mid-buccal keratinized mucosa (KM) width in mm, and peri-implant phenotype), and radiographic (i.e., marginal bone level change [ΔMBL]) outcomes. Biological, mechanical and technical complications were also recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the initial cohort, 22 patients (9/40.9% male and 13/59% female) and 63 implants (47 with GBR, 16 without GBR), could be re-examined at T2. Overall, ΔMBL (T2-T1) was -0.56 ± 0.96 mm. In the GBR group, ΔMBL were significantly higher at the distal sites compared to the no-GBR group (-0.75 ± 1.17 mm vs. -0.12 ± 1.29 mm, p = 0.045), however, in the GBR group MBL started at a higher level at T1 but were similar with the no-GBR group at T2. Implant survival was 100% with only very few technical complications (6.3%). Mean PPD amounted to 3.84 ± 1.00 mm with significantly higher values in the GBR group (3.98 ± 1.08 mm vs. 3.45 ± 0.60 mm; p = 0.016). Nineteen implants (30.1%) were diagnosed with peri-implant health while 44 (69.9%) presented with peri-implant mucositis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, favorable clinical and radiographic conditions were recorded around hydrophilic implants with a low surface roughness flange placed in pristine and augmented bone after 10 years in function.</p>","PeriodicalId":93944,"journal":{"name":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: To report the 10-year clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants placed in grafted (GBR) and non-grafted (no-GBR) sites in a Swiss specialist private practice using hydrophilic implants with a low surface roughness flange.
Methods: Fifty consecutively enrolled patients received 159 hydrophilic implants with a low surface roughness flange. A first re-evaluation was performed 1 year after delivery of restoration (T1). An additional examination was performed at the 10-year follow-up (T2) including the assessment of clinical (i.e., periodontal/peri-implant pockets probing depths (PPD) (mm), full-mouth bleeding score (%), implant survival rate, mid-buccal keratinized mucosa (KM) width in mm, and peri-implant phenotype), and radiographic (i.e., marginal bone level change [ΔMBL]) outcomes. Biological, mechanical and technical complications were also recorded.
Results: Out of the initial cohort, 22 patients (9/40.9% male and 13/59% female) and 63 implants (47 with GBR, 16 without GBR), could be re-examined at T2. Overall, ΔMBL (T2-T1) was -0.56 ± 0.96 mm. In the GBR group, ΔMBL were significantly higher at the distal sites compared to the no-GBR group (-0.75 ± 1.17 mm vs. -0.12 ± 1.29 mm, p = 0.045), however, in the GBR group MBL started at a higher level at T1 but were similar with the no-GBR group at T2. Implant survival was 100% with only very few technical complications (6.3%). Mean PPD amounted to 3.84 ± 1.00 mm with significantly higher values in the GBR group (3.98 ± 1.08 mm vs. 3.45 ± 0.60 mm; p = 0.016). Nineteen implants (30.1%) were diagnosed with peri-implant health while 44 (69.9%) presented with peri-implant mucositis.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, favorable clinical and radiographic conditions were recorded around hydrophilic implants with a low surface roughness flange placed in pristine and augmented bone after 10 years in function.