J Adv Prosthodont.  2018 Apr;10(2):85-92. 10.4047/jap.2018.10.2.85.

Hydroxyapatite-coated implant: Clinical prognosis assessment via a retrospective follow-up study for the average of 3 years

• Jung JH
• Kim SY
• Yi YJ
• Lee BK
• Kim YK

• KMID: 2409627
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.2.85

Abstract

PURPOSE
This research evaluated clinical outcomes of two types of hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated implants: OT (Osstem TS III-HA, Osstem implant Co., Busan, Korea) and ZM (Zimmer TSV-HA, Zimmer dental, Carlsbad, USA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The research was conducted on 303 implants (89 of OT, 214 of ZM), which were placed from January 16, 2010 to December 20, 2012. The prognosis was evaluated in terms of success rates, survival rates, annual marginal bone loss, and implant stability quotients (ISQ). The samples were classified into immediate, early, conventional, and delayed groups according to the loading time.
RESULTS
Overall, there were no significant differences between OT and ZM in success rates, survival rates, and annual marginal bone loss, except for the result of secondary stability. OT showed 77.83 ± 8.23 ISQ, which was marginally higher than 76.09 ± 6.90 ISQ of ZM (P < .05). In terms of healing periods, only immediate loading showed statistically significant differences (P < .05). Differences between OT and ZM were observed in terms of two indices, the annual marginal bone loss (0.17 ± 0.58 mm/year < 0.45 ± 0.80 mm/year) and secondary stability (84.36 ± 3.80 ISQ > 82.48 ± 3.69 ISQ) (P < .05). OT and ZM did not have any statistically significant differences in early, conventional, and delayed loading (P>.05).
CONCLUSION
OT (97.75%) and ZM (98.50%) showed relatively good outcomes in terms of survival rates. In general, OT and ZM did not show statistically significant differences in most indices (P>.05), although OT performed marginally better than ZM in the immediate loading and 1-stage surgery (P < .05).

Keyword

Dental implant; Hydroxyapatite coating; Outcome

MeSH Terms

Busan
Dental Implants
Durapatite
Follow-Up Studies*
Prognosis*
Retrospective Studies*
Survival Rate
Dental Implants
Durapatite

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Marginal bone loss.Estimated Level of Marginal Bone = Measured Level of Marginal Bone × Actual Length of FixtureMeasured Length of FixtureMarginal Bone Loss = 1st Estimated Value – Final Estimated ValueActual length of fixture: a, Measured length of fixture: b, Measured level of marginal bone: c,Estimated level of marginal bone: X=c×abMarginal bone loss = X2 – X1

• 

  Fig. 2 Example of measurement using periapical radiographs. (A) Left radiograph was taken after delivering a prosthesis, (B) Right radiograph was taken during follow-up period. Both radiographs are ZM implants in the same patient.

Reference

1. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981; 10:387–416. PMID: 6809663.

2. de Groot K, Geesink R, Klein CP, Serekian P. Plasma sprayed coatings of hydroxylapatite. J Biomed Mater Res. 1987; 21:1375–1381. PMID: 3429472.

3. Szmukler-Moncler S, Piattelli A, Favero GA, Dubruille JH. Considerations preliminary to the application of early and immediate loading protocols in dental implantology. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000; 11:12–25. PMID: 11168189.

4. Gapski R, Wang HL, Mascarenhas P, Lang NP. Critical review of immediate implant loading. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003; 14:515–527. PMID: 12969355.

5. Whitehead RY, Lucas LC, Lacefield WR. The effect of dissolution on plasma sprayed hydroxylapatite coatings on titanium. Clin Mater. 1993; 12:31–39. PMID: 10171675.

6. Wheeler SL. Eight-year clinical retrospective study of titanium plasma-sprayed and hydroxyapatite-coated cylinder implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11:340–350. PMID: 8752555.

7. Zablotsky MH. Hydroxyapatite coatings in implant dentistry. Implant Dent. 1992; 1:253–257. PMID: 1298500.

8. Overgaard S, Søballe K, Josephsen K, Hansen ES, Bünger C. Role of different loading conditions on resorption of hydroxyapatite coating evaluated by histomorphometric and stereological methods. J Orthop Res. 1996; 14:888–894. PMID: 8982130.

9. Yoshinari M, Ozeki K, Sumii T. Properties of hydroxyapatite-coated Ti-6Al-4V alloy produced by the ion-plating method. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 1991; 32:147–156. PMID: 1668076.

10. Sugiyama T, Miake Y, Yajima Y, Yamamoto K, Sakurai K. Surface observation of thin hydroxyapatite-coated implants at 80 months after insertion. J Oral Implantol. 2011; 37:273–278. PMID: 20594064.

11. Lee JJ, Rouhfar L, Beirne OR. Survival of hydroxyapatite-coated implants: a meta-analytic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 58:1372–1379. PMID: 11117685.

12. Kim SS, Lee JH, Yu SH, Lee HJ, Moon JW, Park IS, Sohn DS. Comparative study of removal torque of 3 different hydroxyapatite coated implants in the femur of rabbits. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 37:49–53.

13. Eom TG, Kim JH, Cho IH, Jeong CM, Cho YS, Kim YK. Experimental study about the bony healing of hydroxyapatite coating implants. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 37:295–300.

14. Aparicio C, Rangert B, Sennerby L. Immediate/early loading of dental implants: a report from the Sociedad Española de Implantes World Congress consensus meeting in Barcelona, Spain, 2002. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003; 5:57–60.

15. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986; 1:11–25. PMID: 3527955.

16. Naert I, Koutsikakis G, Duyck J, Quirynen M, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D. Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. part I: a longitudinal clinical evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002; 13:381–389. PMID: 12175375.

17. O'Roark WL. Survival rate of dental implants: an individual practitioner’s anecdotal review of 25 years of experience. J Oral Implantol. 1997; 23:90–103. PMID: 9477846.

18. Guttenberg SA. Longitudinal report on hydroxyapatite-coated implants and advanced surgical techniques in a private practice. Compend. 1993; S549–S553.

19. Saadoun AP, Le Gall MG. An 8-year compilation of clinical results obtained with Steri-Oss endosseous implants. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1996; 17:669–674. 676PMID: 9051940.

20. Jones JD, Lupori J, Van Sickels JE, Gardner W. A 5-year comparison of hydroxyapatite-coated titanium plasma-sprayed and titanium plasma-sprayed cylinder dental implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999; 87:649–652. PMID: 10397651.

21. Kim YK, Ahn KJ, Yun PY, Kim M, Yang HS, Yi YJ, Bae JH. Effect of loading time on marginal bone loss around hydroxyapatite-coated implants. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 39:161–167. PMID: 24471037.

22. Kim YK, Lee JH, Lee JY, Yi YJ. A randomized controlled clinical trial of two types of tapered implants on immediate loading in the posterior maxilla and mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 28:1602–1611.

23. Polizzi G, Grunder U, Goené R, Hatano N, Henry P, Jackson WJ, Kawamura K, Renouard F, Rosenberg R, Triplett G, Werbitt M, Lithner B. Immediate and delayed implant placement into extraction sockets: a 5-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000; 2:93–99. PMID: 11359269.

24. Morris HF, Ochi S. Hydroxyapatite-coated implants: a case for their use. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998; 56:1303–1311. PMID: 9820219.