A randomized clinical 1-year trial comparing two types of non-submerged dental implants

Objectives This study compared the implant stability and clinical outcomes obtained with two types of non-submerged dental implants that have different thread designs and surface treatments. Materials and methods A randomized clinical trial with 1 year of follow-up was performed on 56 participants with 75 implants (control group, 36 implants in 28 subjects; experimental group, 39 implants in 28 subjects). The experimental group received the Osstem SSII Implant system; the control group received the Standard Straumann (R) Dental Implant System. The diameter and length of the fixture were uniform at 4.1 mm and 10 mm and all the implants restored the unilateral loss of one or two molars from the mandible. To compare implant stability, the peak insertion torque, implant stability quotient (ISQ), and periotest value (PTV) were evaluated during surgery, and at 4 and 10 weeks after surgery. To compare marginal bone loss, standard periapical radiographs were obtained during surgery, and at 10 weeks and 1 year after surgery. Results This study showed statistically significant differences between the two groups in peak insertion torque (P=0.009) and ISQ (P=0.003) but not in PTV (P=0.097) at surgery. In contrast, there was no statistically significant difference in the pattern of change of ISQ during the 10 weeks after surgery (P=0.339). For marginal bone loss, no significant difference was observed between the control and the experimental groups before functional loading (P=0.624), but after 1 year of follow-up, a borderline difference was observed (P=0.048). Conclusion The success rate after 1 year of follow-up was 100% for both implant system despite the presence of a significant difference in implant stability during surgery. There was a borderline difference in marginal bone loss after 1 year of follow-up. To cite this article:Park J-C, Ha S-R, Kim S-M, Kim M-J, Lee J-B, Lee J-H. A randomized clinical 1-year trial comparing two types of non-submerged dental implant.Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 228-236.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01828.x.