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: Stability, marginal bone loss and survival of standard and modified sand-blasted, acid-etched implants in bilateral edentulous spaces: a prospective 15-month evaluation.
    Author: Karabuda ZC, Abdel-Haq J, Arisan V.
    Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res; 2011 Aug; 22(8):840-9. PubMed ID: 21198901.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Chemical modification of the already proven sand-blasted and acid-etched (SLA) implant had increased its surface wettability and consequent early-term osseointegration characteristics. The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the stability changes, success, survival, peri-implant parameters and marginal bone loss (MBL) of the early-loaded standard (SLA) and modified sand-blasted, acid-etched (modSLA) implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 96 SLA and modSLA implants were placed in a bi-lateral, cross-arch position to the jaws of 22 patients. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was used to measure the implant stability in the surgery and following healing after 1, 3 and 6 weeks. At the stage of loading, a panoramic X-ray was obtained and RFA measurement was repeated for all implants. Implants were restored by metal-ceramic crowns and followed for 1 year to determine the success, survival rate, peri-implant parameters and MBL. Results were compared by one- and two-way ANOVA, log-rank test and generalized linear mixed models (P < 0.05). RESULTS: One modSLA implant was lost after 3 weeks following the surgery yielding to a 100 and 97.91% success rate for SLA and modSLA implants, respectively (P = 0.323). At the loading stage, modSLA implants showed significantly lower MBL (0.18 ± 0.05 mm) than SLA implants (0.22 ± 0.06 mm; P = 0.002). In the loading stage, RFA value of the modSLA implants (60.42 ± 6.82) was significantly higher than the both implant types in the surgical stage (55.46 ± 8.29 and 56.68 ± 8.19), and following 1 (56.08 ± 7.01 and 55.60 ± 9.07) and 3 weeks of healing (55.94 ± 5.95 and 55.40 ± 6.50 for SLA and modSLA implants, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: modSLA implants demonstrated a better stability and a reduced MBL at the loading stage. Both SLA and modSLA implants demonstrated a favorable success and survival at the end of 15-month follow-up.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]