Smooth-Surface Versus Rough-Surface Implants

A retrospective study by Balshe, et al compared the survival rates of smooth- and rough-surface dental im­plants. The study retrospectively re­viewed patient charts for the time period from January 1, 1991, through Dec­ember 31, 1996, during which smooth-surface im­plants were used, and also reviewed the time period from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2005, during which rough-surface im­plants were used. The study included all implants placed and restored in one institution during the above 2 time frames. Data that were collected included patient age and gender, implant diameter and length, and anatomic lo­cation of the implants. Fur­ther, implants from the first time period were followed through mid 1998 and im­plants from the second time period were followed through mid-2007.
A total of 593 patients (322 women and 271 men, with a mean age of 51.3 ± 18.5 years) received 2,182 smooth-surface implants between 1991 and 1996, and 905 patients (539 women and 366 men, with a mean age of 48.2 ± 17.8 years) received 2,425 rough-surface implants between 2001 and 2005. The study found that at 5 years after implant placement, the survival rate of smooth-surface implants was 94.0%, and for the rough-surface implants the survival rate was 94.5% (difference not significant). The study noted that for the smooth implants, implant length ≤ 10 mm and anatomic location were significantly associated with implant failure, and for the rough im­plants, implant length ≤ 10 mm and anatomic location were not identified as risk factors for implant failure.
The study concluded that there was no significant difference in the survival rates of smooth- and rough-surface dental implants. Anatomic location and implant length ≤ 10 mm were associated with failures of the smooth-surface implants only.
(Source: Inter­national Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Nov­ember/December 2009, Vol­ume 24, Issue 6)
Banner