Nano-superhydrophilic and bioactive surface in poor bone environment. Part 1: transition from primary to secondary stability. A controlled clinical trial : Bioactive implant surfaces in poor density bone

Objectives Bioactive surfaces were designed to increase the interaction between the surface and the cells. This may speed up the biological stability and loading protocols. Materials and methods 36 patients with D3-D4 bone density were recruited and allocated into two groups. 30 bioactive (test group) and 30 traditional (control group) surfaced implants were placed. Insertion torque value (Ncm), insertion torque curve integral (cumulative torque, Ncm), torque density (Ncm/sec), implant stability quotient (ISQ) measured at three timepoints (baseline (T0), 30 (T30) and 45 (T45) days after surgery), and marginal bone loss (MBL) at 6 months of loading were assessed. Results The mean ISQ and standard deviation at T0, T30, T45 were respectively 74.57 +/- 7.85, 74.78 +/- 7.31, 74.97 +/- 6.34 in test group, and 77.12 +/- 5.83, 73.33 +/- 6.13, 73.44 +/- 7.89 in control group, respectively. Data analysis showed significant differences between groups in Delta ISQ at T0-T30 (p = 0.005) and T30-T45 (p = 0.012). Control group showed a significant decrease in ISQ at T30 (p = 0.01) and T45 (p = 0.03) compared to baseline, while no significant change was observed in test group. Due to the stability of the ISQ value >= 70, 26 test group and 23 control group implants were functionally loaded after 45 days. Conversely, due to the ISQ < 70 at T45, four test group implants and one control group implant were loaded after 90 days, and 6 control group implants were loaded after 180 days. Neither insertion torque nor ISQ at baseline were correlated with bone density (in Hounsfield units). There was no significant correlation between cumulative torque and ISQ at baseline. There was a significant positive slope in the correlation between torque density and ISQ at baseline, more accentuated in D3 than D4. This correlation remained significant for the test group in D3 bone at day 30 and 45 (p < 0.01 in both time frames), but not in D4 bone, and it was not significant in CG. Conclusions The bioactive surface showed better behavior in terms of implant stability in D3-D4 bone quality in the early stages of bone healing. Clinical relevance This study demonstrated that the transition from primary to secondary stability is improved using bioactive surface, especially in cases of poor bone environment (D3/D4 bone).