A prospective case-control clinical trial comparing 1- and 2-stage Nobel Biocare TiUnite implants: resonance frequency analysis assessed by Osstell Mentor during integration.

OBJECTIVE: To compare implant stability between 1- and 2-stage Nobel Biocare TiUnite implants at various points of time after placement. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients were enrolled according to specific selection criteria to 1- or 2-stage treatment. Nineteen patients received 35 1-stage early loaded implants, and 10 patients received 26 2-stage early loaded implants. A total of 32 Branemark System MKIII Groovy and 29 NobelSpeedy Groovy implants were placed in the premolar and molar areas. Implant stability was assessed, in both groups, by means of the Osstell Mentor device at the time of implant placement and at 8 and 12 weeks. All patients were monitored from implant placement until 6 months of function. RESULTS: One 1-stage complicated implant showed discontinuous measurements, and this patient was excluded from the analysis. In the maxilla (31 implants), there was no significant difference for implant stability quotients between the groups at any point (P > .05). In the mandible (29 implants), there was no significant difference for ISQ between the groups at baseline or 8 weeks (P > .05); however, a significant difference was found after 12 weeks (P = .0261). No implant failed between surgery and the end of the study, and there was an overall survival rate of 100%. CONCLUSION: High ISQ values were found in both groups at each time point. One-stage technique is a viable alternative to 2-stage technique. The utilized implants seem to be suitable for early loading in both arches. NobelSpeedy Groovy showed a higher primary anchorage, especially in the maxilla.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage implant placement: 1-year results of a randomised clinical trial.

AIM: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients were randomly allocated to 1- or 2-stage treatment groups immediately after implant placement. Twenty-nine patients received 38 1-stage early loaded implants and 18 patients received 51 2-stage early loaded implants. Outcome measures were failures of implants and/or prosthesis, complications, pain score, amount of analgesic consumption and periimplant bone level changes at implant loading (12 weeks) and at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: After 1 year, no dropout occurred. In the 1-stage group, 2 implants (1 patient) failed to osseointegrate and the implant-supported prosthesis could not be placed, versus none in the 2-stage group. Two complications were reported in the 1-stage group versus only one in the 2-stage group. Pain score measurements, analgesic consumption and peri-implant bone level did not show any significant difference between the two groups. All patients would undergo the same procedures again. CONCLUSIONS: The submerged technique is not a prerequisite for osseointegration, though 1-stage implant placement might be at a slightly higher risk for early failures.