Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 6, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Hybrid Versus Moderate Rough Implants in Periodontally Compromised Patients: A Randomized Controlled Split-Mouth
Anton Dank1, Daniël Wismeijer1, Pieter van Elsas1
1Department of Reconstructive Oral Care, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Intro:
To compare clinical conditions and the implant marginal bone level after 1 year following placement of hybrid and moderate rough implants in the mandible of periodontally compromised patients using standardized radiographs.
Methods:
In a multicenter study (three centers), thirty-nine periodontally compromised patients were randomly treated in a split-mouth study with both hybrid and moderate rough implants in the mandible at the premolar and molar site. In each patient, two tissue-level implants were inserted, and a healing cap was placed. After 3 months, the implants were restored with a FPD. The primary outcome consisted of radiographic assessments performed at 1-year follow-up.
Results:
Thirty-six patients completed the study. Both types of implants showed a survival rate of 94.4% ± 3.8% (95% CI 87.0%-100%); all lost implants failed to achieve osseointegration. There is no significant difference found in the change of the bone level over time within the first year between the two groups (p = 0.25 for mesial pocket bone, p = 0.99 for distal pocket bone, p = 0.98 for mesial proximal bone and p = 0.68 for distal proximal bone).
Conclusion:
After one year, no statistically significant radiographic and clinical differences were observed between hybrid and moderately rough implants. However, peri-implant diseases often manifest after a longer period. This underscores the importance of extended follow-up. A subsequent evaluation is planned at the three-year mark.