Stability and integration of laser sintered versus sandblast acid etched implants
Elfeky, A. (2021). Stability and integration of laser sintered versus sandblast acid etched implants. EKB Journal Management System, 67(Issue 1 - January (Oral Surgery)), 225-233. doi: 10.21608/edj.2020.48437.1321
Ahmed Elfeky. "Stability and integration of laser sintered versus sandblast acid etched implants". EKB Journal Management System, 67, Issue 1 - January (Oral Surgery), 2021, 225-233. doi: 10.21608/edj.2020.48437.1321
Elfeky, A. (2021). 'Stability and integration of laser sintered versus sandblast acid etched implants', EKB Journal Management System, 67(Issue 1 - January (Oral Surgery)), pp. 225-233. doi: 10.21608/edj.2020.48437.1321
Elfeky, A. Stability and integration of laser sintered versus sandblast acid etched implants. EKB Journal Management System, 2021; 67(Issue 1 - January (Oral Surgery)): 225-233. doi: 10.21608/edj.2020.48437.1321

Stability and integration of laser sintered versus sandblast acid etched implants

Egyptian Dental Journal
Article 9, Volume 67, Issue 1 - January (Oral Surgery) - Serial Number 2, January 2021, Page 225-233  XML PDF (938.09 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/edj.2020.48437.1321
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Author
Ahmed Elfeky email
Assistant Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Boys, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives: to evaluate clinically and radiographically stability and tissue integration of laser
sintered implant and acid etched-sandblasted implant.
Subjects and methods: Ten implants were inserted in patients with unrestorable premolar or
molar teeth indicated for extraction. They were divided into two groups as the following: group < br /> A included patients who received dental implants with Laser- treated surface, group B included
patients who received implants with (SLA) sandblasted-acid etched surface. The patients were
clinically and radiographically evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at the intervals of 4
month, 6 and 9 months. Clinical evaluation included pocket depth, gingival health, implant
stability using osstell, bleeding index, plaque index, pain and satisfaction. Radiographic
evaluation was done by using periapical radiographs to measure the marginal bone defect.
Results: Both Laser- treated surface implants and sandblasted-acid etched surface implants have
significant success rates with superior clinical and radiographic results of laser treated implants
over acid etched implants after a follow up period up to 9 months.
Conclusion: Laser and acid etched treatment are promising methods for roughening the implant
surface and both have significant success rates.
Key words: Laser treated, Acid etched, Dental implants.
Keywords
Laser treated; Acid etched; Dental implants
Statistics
Article View: 173
PDF Download: 279