Survival of Implants after Indirect Maxillary Sinus Elevation Procedure: A Two Years Longitudinal Study.

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the survival rate of two diverse implant systems with different implant surfaces with the same geometrical design.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

One hundred fifty patients were included in the study in which 95 were males and 55 were females and 150 implants were placed using indirect sinus floor elevation technique and only one implant was placed in each subject and they were categorized into two groups of 100 in group A and 50 in group B as per two different implant systems. At review appointments, implants were tested clinically and radiographically and were examined for signs of infection. The patients were examined periodically after placement of the implants, and follow-up was conducted annually.

RESULTS

Results of the Chi-square analysis showed no significant association between the type of implant surface and rate of success or failure of the implant. There was no significant difference between the observed and expected frequency of successful implants in group A as well as group B, indicating that the surface type of implant had no significant association with the success of the implant in group A and B.

CONCLUSION

To date, there is no consensus in the literature regarding the best surface and even on the macrotopography of the implants for better osseointegration. However, Surface treatments improve the result of osseointegration, especially in the early stages, benefiting bone affixation with qualitative and quantitative enhancements. In the present study, we achieved clinical success with both kinds of implant surfaces however Bioetched implant surface showed promising results comparable to Tiunite surface of Nobel BioCare Implants. In the future, more case-controlled studies with longer follow-up are needed to validate the results of the present findings.