Rough Dental Implant Surfaces and Peri-Implantitis: Role of Phase-Contrast Microscopy, Laser Protocols, and Modified Home Oral Hygiene in Maintenance. A 10-Year Retrospective Study

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate two different kinds of rough implant surface and to assess their tendency to peri-implantitis disease, with a follow-up of more than 10 years. Data were obtained from a cluster of 500 implants with Ti-Unite surface and 1000 implants with Ossean surface, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Implants had been inserted both in pristine bone and regenerated bone. We registered incidence of peri-implantitis and other causes of implant loss. All patients agreed with the following maintenance protocol: sonic brush with vertical movement (Broxo), interdental brushes, and oral irrigators (Broxo) at least two times every day. For all patients with implants, we evaluated subgingival plaque samples by phase-contrast microscopy every 4 months for a period of more than 10-years. Ti-Unite surface implants underwent peri-implantitis in 1.6% of the total number of implants inserted and Ossean surface implants showed peri-implantitis in 1.5% of the total number of implants. The total percentage of implant lost was 4% for Ti-Unite surfaces and 3.6% for Ossean surfaces. Strict control of implants leads to low percentage of peri-implantitis even for rough surfaces dental implants.