Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Ho, Danny S. W.
• Yeung, Stephen C. H.
• Zee, Kwan Yat
• Curtis, Bradley
• Hell, Peter
• Tumuluri, Vijay

Titel

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of NobelActiveTM dental implants

Ist Teil von

• Clinical oral implants research, 2013-03, Vol.24 (3), p.297-304

Ort / Verlag

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Erscheinungsjahr

2013

Quelle

Wiley-Blackwell Journals

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Objectives To conduct a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the short‐term clinical and radiographic efficacy of the NobelActive™ system and to evaluate the relative importance of achieving primary stability at placement. Materials and methods A total of 32 subjects were recruited and, using a split‐mouth design, the NobelActiveTM implant was compared with a contralaterally matched Brånemark implant. Both implants were placed in a single surgical procedure into healed sites using a one‐stage protocol and reviewed at monthly intervals. NobelActiveTM implants were functionally loaded with provisional restorations at 1 month and all implants were restored with final crowns 3 months post‐implant placement. The implant was assessed using peak insertion torque values, resonance frequency analysis (RFA), clinical parameters, digital subtraction radiography, and cone beam computed tomography. Results The insertion torque was significantly greater for the NobelActiveTM implant group (P = 0.02), although no observable difference in RFA values were found. Preliminary results of 6 months follow‐up suggest comparable clinical and radiographic healing responses between the test and control implants. Within the limits of the sample population, the survival rates were lower with the test implants, although this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions The NobelActiveTM implant system requires higher insertion torques and can also achieve greater primary stability compared with a control implant system. Short‐term survival and marginal bone levels of NobelActiveTM and control implants are comparable, although the NobelActiveTM implant system appeared to be more technique‐sensitive.