Photo-activated implants: a triple-blinded, split-mouth, randomized controlled clinical trial on the resistance to removal torque at various healing intervals
- 8 Downloads
Hydrophilic implant surfaces promote faster osseointegration of dental implants with a higher bone-implant contact (BIC) rate. Animal and in vitro studies proved that ultraviolet (UV) irradiation of titanium implants regains hydrophilicity. Clinical impact is still unclear. The objective of this RCT was to assess the removal torque (RT) required to unfix a surface-treated implant (test group) versus the original surface implant (control group) performed at various points in time. The null hypothesis stated that test and control implants will show the same deliberation force at specific time points.
Material and methods
One hundred eighty partially edentulous patients were randomly assigned to six groups. In single-stage surgery, each patient received one test and one control implant. In total, 180 test and 180 control implants were placed epicrestally. Test implants received a surface treatment with UV irradiation prior to insertion, in order to reduce carbon and enhance hydrophilicity and thus wettability. Maximum RT values for test and control implants were recorded with a torque measuring device at implant placement (T1), after 1 (group 1), 2 (group 2), 3 (group 3), 4 (group 4), 6 (group 5) (T2), and 8 weeks (group 6) of healing. Subsequently, implants were returned to their original position for the continuation of the healing process.
No implant was lost. Age, gender, smoking, implant position, and bone quality could be excluded as confounding factors because of the lack of statistical significance. At T2, RT values were higher for test implants compared with those for control implants, being statistically significant in groups 2, 3, 4, and 6 (p < 0.05).
Our data support rejection of the null hypothesis.
Photo-activation of the surface of titanium implants leads to higher resistance to RT forces compared with that of non-treated implants, indicating improved healing and implant stability especially in the early healing phase.
KeywordsRemoval torque Photo-activated implants healing intervals Hydrophilicity Bone to implant contact rate
The authors thank Dipl. Math. Ulrike von Hehn for her statistical support.
The study was supported by a grant from Ushio. The implants were provided by BioHorizons. W+H provided the calibrated drilling device.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 7.Atsumi M, Park S-H, Wang H-L (2007) Methods used to assess implant stability: current status. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22(5):743–754Google Scholar
- 9.Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T (1985) Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical. Quintessence, Chicago [u. a]Google Scholar
- 10.Buser D, Nydegger T, Hirt HP, Cochran DL, Nolte LP (1998) Removal torque values of titanium implants in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13(5):611–619Google Scholar
- 21.He F, Yang G, Wang X et al (2009) Effect of electrochemically deposited nanohydroxyapatite on bone bonding of sandblasted/dual acid-etched titanium implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24(5):790–799Google Scholar
- 22.Hyzy SL, Cheng A, Cohen DJ, Yatzkaier G, Whitehead AJ, Clohessy RM, Gittens RA, Boyan BD, Schwartz Z (2016) Novel hydrophilic nanostructured microtexture on direct metal laser sintered Ti-6Al-4V surfaces enhances osteoblast response in vitro and osseointegration in a rabbit model. J Biomed Mater Res A 104(8):2086–2098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Meredith N (1998) Assessment of implant stability as a prognostic determinant. Int J Prosthodont 11(5):491–501Google Scholar
- 31.Ogawa T (2014) Ultraviolet photofunctionalization of titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29(1): e95–102Google Scholar
- 32.Raghavendra S, Wood MC, Taylor TD (2005) Early wound healing around endosseous implants: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20(3):425–431Google Scholar
- 33.Sartoretto S C, Alves A T N N, Zarranz L et al (2016) Hydrophilic surface of Ti6Al4V-ELI alloy improves the early bone apposition of sheep tibia. Clin Oral Implants ResGoogle Scholar
- 39.Sullivan DY, Sherwood RL, Collins TA et al (1996) The reverse-torque test: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11(2):179–185Google Scholar
- 41.Tjellstrom A, Jacobsson M, Albrektsson T (1988) Removal torque of osseointegrated craniofacial implants: a clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 3(4):287–289Google Scholar