Author(s): Jungner M, Lundqvist P, Lundgren S
Abstract Share this page
Abstract OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare two implant types of similar shape but with different surfaces with respect to implant failure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 136 patients were treated with Nobel Biocare Implants between January 2001 and December 2002. Totally 394 implants were placed, of which 199 were oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare TiUnite and 195 with turned titanium surface (Nobel Biocare Mark III. Sixty-three patients underwent a one-stage surgical protocol, of which 24 were objected to early functional loading. The remaining 73 patients were treated with a traditional two-stage surgical protocol. All patients were followed for a minimum of 5 months after loading of the implants. Implants were classified as survivals when clinically stable and fulfilling purported function without any discomfort to the patient, with no signs of infection or ongoing pathologic process. RESULTS: Seven implants were lost in five patients (two males and three females), six in the maxilla and one in the mandible. All failed implants were Mark III implants, inserted following the traditional two-stage protocol. The implant success rate was 98.2\% for the whole-patient group, divided as a 100\% success rate following the implants with oxidized surface (Nobel Biocare TiUnite compared with a success rate of 96.4\% with implants with turned surface (Nobel Biocare Mark III).
This article was published in Clin Oral Implants Res
and referenced in Dentistry