BIOACTIVE MICROSTRUCTURED ANTI MICROBIAL PRECOATED SURFACE IMPLANT VERSUS NON-COATED SURFACE IMPLANT IN TYPE 2 DIABETIC PATIENT IN THE MANDIBLE (A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL) | ||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||
| Articles in Press, Corrected Proof, Available Online from 05 April 2025 PDF (1.01 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2024.309385.1528 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Dalia Omar Ahmed* ; Mervat Khalil; Marwa G. Noureldin | ||
| Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt | ||
| Abstract | ||
| ABSTRACT Introduction: Dental implants Surface properties significantly influence both biological and mechanical integration. As surface bio-treatment could accelerate and enhance bone regeneration, ensuring more successful implantation. Objectives: to compare the implant stability, pain intensity, wound healing and bone densification around two different implants one with bioactive surface coating and implant with non-coated surface in controlled type 2 diabetic patients. Materials and Methods: In a randomized clinical trial, ten patients with controlled type 2 diabetes and bilateral missing mandibular posterior teeth participated. Using a split-mouth technique, each patient received a non-coated implant on one side and a pre-coated surface implant on the opposite side of the posterior mandible than implants stability, postoperative pain intensity, wound healing, and bone density formation were compared between bioactive antimicrobial coated surface implants and non-coated implants.. Clinical and radiographic Assessments were conducted within the following postoperative 6-month for all patients. Results: The study compared non-coated titanium dental implants to bioactive Ca-P coated implants. the Ca-P pre-coated implants exhibited significantly higher primary and secondary stability than non-coated implants (p < 0.001). While, the non-coated implants reported lower postoperative pain levels (p = 0.05, p = 0.046). No statistically significant difference reported in wound healing (p > 0.05). However, Ca-P pre-coated implants demonstrated greater bone densification over time (p < 0.001) then non-coated implants. Conclusion: Both groups of implants showed satisfactory results; however, implants coated with Ca-P were particularly noted for enhancing implant stability and promoting bone density formation. Consequently, the pre-coated implants outperformed the non-coated implants. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Non-coated; Pre-coated Ca-P; Implant; Density; stability | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 88 PDF Download: 86 |
||
