Stability Comparison of Implants with Alumina Sandblasting and Acid Etching Surface Treatment: A Retrospective Cohort Study

TL;DR

This study compared the 1-year stability of two implant brands with similar surface treatments and found both to be reliable with no significant differences in performance.

Contribution

The study provides a direct comparison of two Korean implant brands with alumina sandblasting and acid etching surface treatments in a clinical setting.

Findings

Both Osstem and Toplan implants showed significantly increased stability over time with no significant difference between them.

Osstem implants had higher stability in D2 bone and the mandible compared to D3 bone and the maxilla.

Toplan implants with diameters >4.0 mm had higher initial stability, but no correlation between insertion torque and stability was found for Toplan.

Abstract

Objectives: This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare and evaluate the 1-year stability of two Korean implant brands, Osstem and Toplan, both treated with alumina- sandblasting and acid- etching (SA) surface modification. Methods: This retrospective analysis evaluated patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I or II, >20 years, with alveolar bone volume suitable for implant placement, who received immediate or delayed placement after extraction, and with Osstem (n = 57) or Toplan (n = 87) implants. The insertion torque value (ITV) measured on the day of implant placement and the implant stability quotient (ISQ) measured on the day of implant placement, 1 month post-surgery, and 2–3 months after implantation were analyzed. Results: Both implants had significantly increased ISQs over time, and the ISQs did not significantly differ between Osstem and Toplan implants at any time point. Osstem implants showed significantly higher ISQs in D2 than in D3 bone, and in the mandible than in the maxilla at all time points. Toplan implants with diameters >4.0 mm showed higher initial ISQs. Osstem implants showed a significant correlation between ITV and ISQ on the day of placement (r = 0.349, p < 0.01) but not at later time points. For Toplan implants, no significant correlation was confirmed between ITV and ISQ at any time point. At the 1-year follow-up, both implants were still providing functional service. Conclusions: Osstem and Toplan implants with SA surface treatment showed a high level of stability for 1 year, and no significant difference in stability was observed between the two implants. Both implants are considered clinically reliable products.

Figures