Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 5, 2026
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
A 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Study on Hydrophilic Dental Implants Placed with and without Bone Augmentation
Thomas Zumstein1, Lars Sennerby2
1Zumstein Dental Clinic AG, Luzern, Switzerland.
Purpose:
The aim of the present 1-year clinical and radiographic study was to evaluate a hydrophilic dental implant when used in everyday cases in one clinic. The purpose was also to compare augmented with nonaugmented sites.
Materials And Methods:
The study group consisted of 50 consecutive patients treated with 159 dental implants (Proactive, Neoss Ltd, Harrogate, UK) in both mandibles and maxillae. Ninety-two implants were placed with adjunct bone augmentation procedures, whereas 40 implants were placed in augmented maxillary sinus sites. A two-stage procedure was used for 84 implants and a one-stage procedure for 47 implants. Twenty-eight implants were immediately loaded. Implant stability was measured with resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at placement and at prosthesis delivery. The patients were scheduled for checkups after 6 and 12 months in function with clinical and radiographic examinations. Marginal bone level measurements were performed in baseline and follow-up intraoral radiographs.
Results:
Two implant failures in two patients were experienced after 1 year of loading, giving a survival rate of 98.7%. One implant in nonaugmented sites and one implant in conjunction with an augmentation procedure (sinus lift), giving a survival rate of 98.5% and 98.9% for healed and augmented sites, respectively (NS). RFA measurements showed 70.2 ± 9.5 ISQ at placement and 76.5 ± 5.9 ISQ (p ≤ 0.001) after a mean healing time of 5.6 ± 1.6 months. The marginal bone loss amounted to 0.7 ± 0.7 mm after 1 year of loading. Frequency distribution showed bone gain or less than 1 mm bone loss for the majority of implants (69.3%), whereas 25.7% showed 1.1 to 2 mm, 5.0% more than 2 mm and no implants more than 3 mm of bone loss.
Conclusions:
The use of Neoss Proactive implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of consecutive patients resulted in predictable clinical and radiographic outcomes after 1 year of loading with no differences between augmented and nonaugmented sites.
