Nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the treatment of the partially edentulous maxilla.

BACKGROUND

Dental implants vary in design and surfaces. In addition, different surgical techniques have been used for implant insertion. The ITI Dental Implant System (Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland) has always required a one-stage technique, whereas the Brånemark System (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) requires a two-stage technique.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of fixed partial bridges in the maxilla supported by both ITI and Brånemark implants in a split-mouth design.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-eight patients with a residual anterior dentition in the maxilla were included in this split-mouth study. The Brånemark implants were used on one side and the ITI implants on the other side of the residual dentition according to a randomization procedure. A blocking size of four was used, giving equal probability of placing ITI or Brånemark implants in the right or left side of the jaw. The surgical and prosthetic procedures followed the guidelines given by the manufacturers. The prosthetic treatment with the two-implant systems was performed at the same time, and for that reason the healing period was 6 months for both systems. The observation period for all patients was 1 year after loading.

RESULTS

Two Brånemark implants (in one patient) were lost before loading, and one ITI implant was lost 1 year after loading. There was no significant difference in survival rate. Radiographic examination of the bone level was performed at the time of delivery of the bridge and after 1 year. The mean marginal bone level at baseline was situated 1.9 mm from the reference point for the Brånemark implants and 1.5 mm for the ITI implants. With regard to the insertion depth used, these bone levels indicate that bone loss had taken place before baseline. However, between baseline and the 1-year examination, there was no significant change of the marginal bone (0.2 +/- 0.08 mm at the Brånemark implants and 0.1 +/- 0.11 mm at the ITI implants). The difference between results with the two implants was not statistically significant. Crater-form bone destructions were seen at some ITI implants, indicating periimplantitis. However, at only two implants were there clinical signs of periimplantitis.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference in survival rate or in marginal bone change could be demonstrated between the two systems. At some ITI implants (18%), crater-form bone loss was observed.