The Importance of Surface Characteristics of Implants Replacing Failed Ones

Objectives: The eventual superiority of an implant with an oxidized surface (TiUnite™) was assessed by comparing the success rate of implants (with either a machined or a TiUnite™ surface) which were inserted to replace failed ones. Methods: The files of 578 patients which represent the total of patients who have been treated at the Department of Periodontology of the University Hospital by means of oral implants during 3 consecutive years, with an observation time from 9 to 49 months. All patients had been provided with Brånemark system® implants (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden). Only two types of implant surfaces were used: machined and TiUnite™. Data collection and analysis focused on the reimplanted implants which replaced failed implants after some weeks of healing. Results: A total of 41 patients experienced non-integration, in some of them more than one implant has been replaced. From those, 29 implants with a machined surface were replaced by implants with the same surface. From the latter 6 implants failed. From the 19 implants with a machined surface that were replaced by a TiUnite™ surface implant, 1 failed. Ten implants with a TiUnite™ surface have been replaced by implants with the same surface. None of them failed. The failure rate of implants with a machined surface, inserted to replace a failed implant, was significantly higher when compared with those with TiUnite™ surface (p = 0.05). Conclusion: For the implant system considered one should opt for a TiUnite™ surface when a failed implant has to be replaced.