Non-randomized clinical trial in aesthetic dentistry to evaluate marginal bone level in hydrophilic vs. non-hydrophilic implants for mandibular implant overdentures: A split-mouth design.

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that altering the surface roughness significantly improves implant osseointegration. Enhancing the hydrophilicity of the implants is a similar strategy as hydrophilic surfaces encourage early osseointegration at 14 and 21 days and hasten the bone-healing process after implant placement. Hence, we evaluate and compare the marginal bone level of hydrophilic and non-hydrophilic implants in mandibular implant overdenture.

METHODS AND MATERIAL: The study was a non-randomized, prospective split-mouth design with ten patients, each receiving a hydrophilic implant (Group A) and a non-hydrophilic implant (Group B) on opposite sides of the mandibular arch. An implant-supported overdenture was fitted and monitored at baseline, one month, three months, and six months. Marginal bone loss for the early-loaded hydrophilic implant and conventionally loaded non-hydrophilic implant was measured on each side of the mandibular ridge using an XCP holder and RVG radiographs at each interval. Data was obtained and subjected to statistical analysis using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Although there was no statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss between the two implants, the hydrophilic implant achieved similar success with a faster healing time compared to the non-hydrophilic implant.

CONCLUSIONS

Hydrophilic implants offer a faster-healing alternative to conventional implants for mandibular overdentures.