A retrospective study by Balshe, et al compared the survival rates of smooth- and rough-surface dental implants. The study retrospectively reviewed patient charts for the time period from January 1, 1991, through December 31, 1996, during which smooth-surface implants were used, and also reviewed the time period from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2005, during which rough-surface implants were used. The study included all implants placed and restored in one institution during the above 2 time frames. Data that were collected included patient age and gender, implant diameter and length, and anatomic location of the implants. Further, implants from the first time period were followed through mid 1998 and implants from the second time period were followed through mid-2007.
A total of 593 patients (322 women and 271 men, with a mean age of 51.3 ± 18.5 years) received 2,182 smooth-surface implants between 1991 and 1996, and 905 patients (539 women and 366 men, with a mean age of 48.2 ± 17.8 years) received 2,425 rough-surface implants between 2001 and 2005. The study found that at 5 years after implant placement, the survival rate of smooth-surface implants was 94.0%, and for the rough-surface implants the survival rate was 94.5% (difference not significant). The study noted that for the smooth implants, implant length ≤ 10 mm and anatomic location were significantly associated with implant failure, and for the rough implants, implant length ≤ 10 mm and anatomic location were not identified as risk factors for implant failure.
The study concluded that there was no significant difference in the survival rates of smooth- and rough-surface dental implants. Anatomic location and implant length ≤ 10 mm were associated with failures of the smooth-surface implants only.
.
