Evaluation of Soft and Hard Tissue Healing and Implant Stability Of Hydrophilic Versus Conventional Titanium Dental Implants.

Overview

Dental implants have become more common treatment for replacing missing teeth and aim to improve chewing efficiency, physical health and esthetic. Researchers always tried to improve design, mechanical and chemical properties of implant. Major benefit of surface modification are to improve hydrophilicity, cell to implant adhesion and cell proliferation. These modification improve osseointegration and reduce treatment duration. In this study investigators are evaluating healing capacity of hydrophilic implant compared to conventional implant.

Implant stability at early stages is one of the most important factors affecting osseointegration success. Implant stability occurs as a result of mechanical engagement with the bone (primary stability), in addition to bone remodeling and regeneration (secondary stability) . Primary stability is certainly one of the fundamental criteria influencing implant success . Although there are several techniques to assess primary stability, one of the most popular digital methods is Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA), Osstell® system (Osstell AB Stampgatan, Gotemborg, Sweden) and Periotest.® (Siemens Medical Systems Inc, Charlotte, Nc). The primary stability of implants also depends on the geometry of the implants (i.e., length, diameter, shape, and thread) besides the surgical technique, volume, and mechanical quality of local bone. Several methods are widely used to modify the implant surface, such as sandblasting, acid etching, anodic oxidation, fluoride treatment, machining, titanium plasma spraying, and calcium phosphate coating. In dental implant, the surface treatment is used to modify the surface topography and surface energy, resulting in an improved wettability (hydrophilicity), increased cell proliferation and growth, and accelerated osseointegration process and reduced treatment duration. Hydrophilicity presents major advantages during the initial stages of wound healing and during the cascade of events that occurs during osseointegration, facilitating bone integration. Although there are several studies which compares hydrophilic and hydrophobic implants, there are limited split mouth studies evaluating healing capacity of hydrophilic implants and hydrophobic implants. Hence the aim of the present study is to evaluate the Marginal bone loss, healing of soft tissue, and primary and secondary implant stability of hydrophobic and hydrophilic implants in same subjects.