Clinical Evaluation of Dental Implants with Surfaces Roughened by Anodic Oxidation, Dual Acid-Etched Implants, and Machined Implants

Purpose: The purpose of this study was the clinical and radiographic comparison of dental implants with surfaces roughened by anodic oxidation (TiUnite), dual acid-etched implants (Osseotite), and machined implants. Materials and Methods: Seventy-four patients (mean age, 52.8 ± 14.2 years; range, 23 to 80 years; 41 men and 33 women) received 198 dental implants—58 TiUnite implants (25 patients), 52 Osseotite implants (27 patients), and 88 machined implants (22 patients). Clinical measurements and radiographs were evaluated at the time of surgery, at the restorative phase, and 2 years postloading. To account for statistical correlation among multiple implants in the same subject, a “per patient” mode of analysis was conducted. A 1-way analysis of variance of bone loss was conducted by type of implant as well by area of the mouth. In addition, differences in mean bone loss were tested for bone density category, gender, and smoking status using Student t tests. Results: Eighteen TiUnite implants (31.0%) were placed in the maxilla and 40 (69.0%) in the mandible. The Osseotite group included 29 maxillary implants (55.8%) and 23 mandibular implants (44.2%). The machined group included 49 maxillary implants (55.7%) and 39 mandibular implants (44.3%). All 198 implants were considered radiographically and clinically successful. No mobility, signs of infection, or inflammation were detected. Discussion: Implant size, location, bone quality, gender, age, and smoking did not influence the comparative clinical outcomes of the 3 groups (P > .05). A trend toward greater coronal bone loss in the TiUnite group was detected. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, TiUnite, Osseotite, and machined dental implants had similar short-term clinical outcomes. No statistically significant differences in bone loss could be detected among implant groups or among the different regions of the oral cavity. The present data underlined the significance of surgical and prosthetic treatment planning. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2005;20:793–798