Page 71 - Peri-implant health: the effect of implant design and surgical procedure on bone and soft tissue stability

LONG-TERM EFFECT OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS AND PATIENTS' FACTORS ON CRESTAL BONE LOSS AT DENTAL IMPLANTS. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
be very successful presenting very limited peri-implant bone loss after 20 years follow-up in a well-maintained population.39 One can conclude that the literature is inconclusive about the effect of implant surface roughness on implant success.
Table 1: Surface roughness and corresponding Sa values (μm) and some implant brands
Surface roughness
Sa value
Some implant brands
Smooth Minimally rough
Moderately rough Rough
< 0.5 μm 0.5 - 1 μm
> 1 - 2 μm > 2 μm
Experimental not clinically available
Machined Brånemark implants, Osseotite, Nanotite
SLA, TiUnite, Osseospeed, TiOblast, Southern
IMZ, TPS, Ankylos, Friadent, Xive
Hence the aim of this study was to scrutinize whether long-term peri-implant bone loss, beyond physiologic bone adaptation, is affected by implant surface roughness and/or patient-related factors such as smoking and history of periodontitis.
■ MATERIALSANDMETHODS
Paper Selection
Since it was the aim of the paper to assess long-term bone loss as surrogate variable for peri-implantitis and to scrutinize the type of studies and the level of quality of reporting, it was decided to conduct a broad literature search using the Pubmed database of the US National Library of Medicine for articles. Publications from 2011 up to December 24, 2015 were selected using the general search algorithm: ((((((“bone loss”) OR “peri-implantitis”)) OR “peri implant”)) AND dental implant). It was opted not to perform a strict review using the terminology “Peri- Implantitis” [Mesh] as search criterion due to the limitation of the generated output to only 426 papers. Because most surface-modified implants were launched commercially at the time of the millennium change, the time frame was set to 2011 to 2015 because this increased the probability to select predominantly currently commercially available implant brands and various rather new surfaces. Furthermore, it seemed logical to have a literature search cut-off at 2011 because peri-implantitis is reported after longer follow-up times and the scientific community has taken special interest in clinical research on peri-implantitis after consensus meetings with specific guidelines for research from 2006 onwards.40–43
69
4