Work

Early Microbiological and Immunological Parameters in Sandblasted, Large‐Grit Acid‐Etched Implant Surfaces: A Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

Year: 2025

Type: article

Study designs: Randomized Controlled Trial, Clinical Trial

Abstract: AIM: To compare microbiological and immunological parameters of two sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched implant surfaces during the first 8 weeks of healing following implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dual-center, split-mouth, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on patients receiving one test (modified hydrophilic surface) and one control (conventional surface) implant in different quadrants. Peri-implant crevicular fluid samples were collected at implant placement and at 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks to assess biomarkers of inflammation (Interleukin [IL]-1β, IL-6, Tumor Necrosis Factor-α, IL-2), biomarkers of anti-inflammation (IL-4, IL-10), and biomarkers of bone metabolism (osteocalcin, osteopontin [OPN], and vascular endothelial growth factor-α [VEGF-α]). Additionally, submucosal samples were obtained at implant placement and at 1, 2, and 4 weeks and analyzed using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and 16S rRNA sequencing. Biomarkers and qPCR data were analyzed with a general linear model using log10-transformed values. Microbiome data were analyzed via Wilcoxon tests and PERMANOVA. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included in the 8-week analysis. VEGF-α levels were significantly higher at 1 week for the conventional surface (p = 0.018). OPN and IL-10 significantly increased from baseline to 4 weeks in both groups. Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium species were the most prevalent bacteria; however, no significant differences were found between the surfaces in bacterial load analysis by qPCR. Additionally, no significant differences were observed between groups for microbiome diversity. CONCLUSION: No differences were detected between the conventional and the modified hydrophilic surfaces in the immunological and microbiological parameters assessed during early implant healing.

Source: Clinical Oral Implants Research

DOI: 10.1111/clr.70058