Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Retrospective analysis of porous tantalum trabecular metal-enhanced titanium dental implants.
Edelmann, Alexander R; Patel, Devang; Allen, Riley K; Gibson, Chad J; Best, Al M; Bencharit, Sompop.
Affiliation
  • Edelmann AR; Resident, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas.
  • Patel D; Former doctoral student, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va.
  • Allen RK; Research Assistant, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
  • Gibson CJ; Undergraduate Research Assistant, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
  • Best AM; Professor and Director of Faculty Research Development, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va.
  • Bencharit S; Associate Professor and Director of Digital Dentistry Technologies, Department of General Practice and Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry; and Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va. Electronic addres
J Prosthet Dent ; 121(3): 404-410, 2019 Mar.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30396711
ABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF

PROBLEM:

The design of porous tantalum trabecular metal-enhanced titanium (TM) dental implants promises improved osseointegration, especially when grafting materials such as demineralized bone matrix are used; however, studies are lacking.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare TM implants with conventional titanium alloy (Ti) implants with and without demineralized bone matrix in terms of peri-implant bone remodeling in the first year after implant loading. MATERIAL AND

METHODS:

A chart review was used for all patients receiving Tapered Screw-Vent Ti and TM implants. Implants were placed and restored by a single provider between 2011 and 2015. Peri-implant bone remodeling was compared by using a paired t test (α=.05).

RESULTS:

A total of 82 patients received 205 implants, 44 TM and 161 Ti implants (control). No implants failed in the TM group (survival rate of 100%), and 3 implants in total, 1 immediate, failed in the Ti groups (survival rate of 98.1%). TM implants exhibited a 0.28-mm bone gain on average, whereas the control group demonstrated 0.20 mm of marginal bone loss after the first year of implant loading. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the odds of having bone loss was 64% less (odds ratio 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.94) in the TM group than in the Ti group after controlling for bone grafting, implant location, immediate placement, bone type, and pretreatment bone level.

CONCLUSIONS:

TM implants exhibited less peri-implant bone loss than the control Ti implants.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Dental Implants / Alveolar Bone Loss Type of study: Observational_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Prosthet Dent Year: 2019 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Dental Implants / Alveolar Bone Loss Type of study: Observational_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Prosthet Dent Year: 2019 Type: Article