RCT comparing minimally with moderately rough implants. Part 1: clinical observations
Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 27, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
N Van Assche1, W Coucke, W Teughels
1Research Group for Microbial Adhesion Leuven, Department of Periodontology, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. nele_van_assche@hotmail.com
Aim:
This 1-year prospective RCT compared the outcome of minimally (turned) and moderately rough (TiUnite) implant surfaces.
Material And Methods:
Two subgroups of patients were formed; one group (n = 10) where all teeth had been extracted due to severe periodontitis, another group (n = 8) with teeth in the antagonistic jaw with a history of periodontitis and some remaining medium pockets (4-6 mm). Implants (n = 85, 43 turned & 42 TiUnite) were installed randomly in each patient. After 3-6 months of submerged healing, healing abutments were connected, followed by final abutments 2 weeks later, all with the same surface characteristics as the supporting implant. Peri-implant parameters and intra-oral radiographs were recorded up to 1 year after abutment connection.
Results:
Two turned implants failed in the partial edentulous group during the initial healing period (CSR: 95%) and none of the TiUnite (CSR: 100%) surface. No statistically significant differences in clinical parameters could be observed between both surfaces. The partial edentulous subgroup showed more bone loss compared to the full edentulous subgroup.
Conclusion:
Moderately rough implants have a similar clinical outcome (at 1 year of loading in periodontitis susceptible patients) compared to minimally rough implants.
