We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18 (2003), No. 4     15. July 2003
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18 (2003), No. 4  (15.07.2003)

Page 589-593

Retrospective Clinical Study of Osseotite Implants: Zero- to 5-year Results
Garlini, Giuliano / Bianchi, Claudio / Chierichetti, Valeria / Sigurtà, Davide / Maiorana, Carlo / Santoro, Franco
Purpose: Over the last few years, particular attention has been paid to the implant surface and its influence on the formation and maintenance of surrounding bone. The surface of Osseotite implants (Implant Innovations) is produced by a process of thermal etching, which produces a surface with an average roughness that is twice that of machined implants produced by the same manufacturer. In addition to reducing osseointegration time, this factor appears to favor its maintenance over time. This study presents the results of a clinical trial of Osseotite implants.
Materials and Methods: Five hundred fifty-five Osseotite implants were placed in 244 patients over 5 years, between September 1996 and September 2001. The average follow-up period from implant placement was 26 months (SD 13.1).
Results: After the first surgical stage, 8 failures were noted in 6 patients. Life table analysis showed a cumulative survival rate of 98.5%, but no implant was lost after prosthetic loading, with a 100% survival rate both for the mandible and for the maxilla. For the prosthetic loading time, only the implants with more than 12 months of loading were considered, obtaining an average prosthetic loading time of 34 months (SD 9.2).
Discussion: The implant survival rate after loading was 100% both in the anterior and posterior regions, and no difference was noted in relation to the different types of prostheses, or length and width of implants.
Conclusion: The results obtained in this retrospective study population revealed an acceptable survival rate for these implant-supported restorations.