These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Six-month performance of implants with oxidized and machined surfaces restored at 2, 4, and 6 weeks postimplantation in adult beagle dogs.
    Author: Knobloch L, Larsen PA, Rashid B, Carr AB.
    Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2004; 19(3):350-6. PubMed ID: 15214218.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare machined-surface implants (control) and oxidized-surface titanium screw-type implants (test) loaded with fixed partial dentures at 2, 4, and 6 weeks postplacement in terms of implant survival and stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The beagle model was chosen for the study. Four mandibular premolars were extracted bilaterally from each dog. After 2 months of healing, 4 implants were placed in each dog. Half of the dogs (n = 6), the test group, received oxidized-surface implants; the other half (n = 6), the control group, received machined-surface implants. In each group, 2 dogs were randomly assigned to a 2-week preloading healing period, 2 to a 4-week period, and 2 to a 6-week period. Three implants were loaded in each dog; 1 was left unloaded as a control. Clinical stability and survival were monitored every 2 weeks for 6 months. RESULTS: Failures were noted only among the implants assigned to the 2- and 4-week groups. Failures accounted for 9.4% (9/96) of the implants--12.5% (6/48) of the control implants and 6.3% (3/48) of the test implants. One hundred percent prosthesis stability was noted for the test-surface implant group. Stability of the test implants was significantly better than stability of the control implants (-2.6 vs -1.7, P < .05). Mean Periotest values at loading were 3.7 for the group loaded at 2 weeks, 1.6 for the group loaded at 4 weeks, and 0.6 for the group loaded at 6 weeks. Fifty percent of the 6-week group, 25% of the 4-week group, and 12.5% of the 2-week group had a Periotest value < 0 at loading. DISCUSSION: The results reveal a qualitative difference in performance between the implant groups. Twice as many failures occurred in the control group, few failures occurred following loading, and no failures occurred after 4 weeks postplacement. The survival curves for both implants were flat after 4 weeks; however, the duration of follow-up may hide effects of time-dependent factors on survival and poses a concern for clinical inference. CONCLUSIONS: Early loading of both implant types was well tolerated, as only 2 failures occurred following loading. A subsequent report will review these outcomes along with histomorphometric data collected at 6 months to better understand the significance of tissue-level implant-surface interaction for survival and stability.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]