{"title":"Prevalence of Peri-Implantitis in Implants with Turned and Rough Surfaces: a Systematic Review.","authors":"Nikola Saulacic, Benoit Schaller","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2019.10101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Moderately-rough implant surface may improve implant therapy in terms of bone integration, but the increased surface roughness might affect the initiation and development of peri-implantitis. The aim of the present review was to compare the prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants with rough and turned (machined) implant surfaces.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>An electronic literature search was conducted of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for articles published between 1 January 1990 and 1 March 2018. Clinical human studies in the English language that had reported on prevalence of peri-implantitis in tuned and rough surface implants were searched. The initial search resulted in 690 articles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight articles with 2992 implants were included in the systematic review. The incidence of peri-implantitis for two implant surfaces varied between studies. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to the heterogeneity among studies. Implant with rough surfaces were more favourable for plaque accumulation during short-term follow-up. On a long-term, turned implants surfaces were associated with more plaque and higher peri-implant bone loss. Peri-implant clinical parameters and survival rate for two implant surfaces was similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of the present study, rough implant surface does not seem to increase the incidence of peri-implantitis in comparison to turned implants surface.</p>","PeriodicalId":53254,"journal":{"name":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5037/jomr.2019.10101","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24
Abstract
Objectives: Moderately-rough implant surface may improve implant therapy in terms of bone integration, but the increased surface roughness might affect the initiation and development of peri-implantitis. The aim of the present review was to compare the prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants with rough and turned (machined) implant surfaces.
Material and methods: An electronic literature search was conducted of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for articles published between 1 January 1990 and 1 March 2018. Clinical human studies in the English language that had reported on prevalence of peri-implantitis in tuned and rough surface implants were searched. The initial search resulted in 690 articles.
Results: Eight articles with 2992 implants were included in the systematic review. The incidence of peri-implantitis for two implant surfaces varied between studies. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to the heterogeneity among studies. Implant with rough surfaces were more favourable for plaque accumulation during short-term follow-up. On a long-term, turned implants surfaces were associated with more plaque and higher peri-implant bone loss. Peri-implant clinical parameters and survival rate for two implant surfaces was similar.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, rough implant surface does not seem to increase the incidence of peri-implantitis in comparison to turned implants surface.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
