Next Article in Journal
The Peri-Implant and Periodontal Microbiota in Patients with and without Clinical Signs of Inflammation
Previous Article in Journal
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Dentistry Journal in 2014
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Dent. J. 2015, 3(1), 15-23; doi:10.3390/dj3010015

Six-Year Survival and Early Failure Rate of 2918 Implants with Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Enossal Surfaces

1,†,* and 2,†
1
Cabinet dentaire, 968, Avenue du Gl. Leclerc, Agen F-47000, France
2
Praxis Grunder und Schneider, Dufourstrasse 7a, Zollikon-Zürich CH-8702, Switzerland
These authors contributed equally to this work.
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Claude Jaquiéry
Received: 18 November 2014 / Revised: 30 January 2015 / Accepted: 2 February 2015 / Published: 5 February 2015
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [650 KB, uploaded 5 February 2015]   |  

Abstract

The aim of this chart review was to obtain an objective, quantitative assessment of the clinical performance of an implant line used in an implantological office setting. Implants with hydrophilic (INICELL) and hydrophobic (TST; both: Thommen Medical AG, Grenchen, Switzerland) enossal surfaces were compared and the cumulative implant survival rate was calculated. The data of 1063 patients that received 2918 implants (1337 INICELL, 1581 TST) was included. The average follow up time was 2.1 (1.1–5.4) years for INICELL and 4.5 (1.3–5.9) years for TST implants (Thommen Medical AG, Switzerland). In the reported period 7 implants with INICELL (0.5%) and 23 TST implants (1.5%) failed. This difference was statistically significant. The analysis of cases treated and followed up in a single implantological office for 6 years confirmed the very good clinical outcome that was achieved with both used implant lines. Within the limitations of this retrospective analysis, the overall early failure rate of the hydrophilic implants was significantly lower than that of hydrophobic implants. The use of hydrophilic implants allows the clinician to obtain less early failures, hence the interest of an up-to-date surface for the daily work of an implant practice. View Full-Text
Keywords: dental implants; early failure rate; case series; enossal surface hydrophilic vs. hydrophobic dental implants; early failure rate; case series; enossal surface hydrophilic vs. hydrophobic
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Gac, O.L.; Grunder, U. Six-Year Survival and Early Failure Rate of 2918 Implants with Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Enossal Surfaces. Dent. J. 2015, 3, 15-23.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Dent. J. EISSN 2304-6767 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top