Poster Presentation: Presented at 2001 Academy of Osseointegration Meeting (16th Annual Session) in Toronto, Canada, March 22-24.
A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study of Restore and Brånemark Screw Shaped Titanium Implants
Glenn J Wolfinger, DMD, FACP & Thomas J Balshi, DDS, FACP, Private Practice, Pi Dental Center, Fort Washington, PA
Published clinical data shows differences in survival rates and bone response between different implant systems1. The present study compares two implant systems, similar in design, in a predetermined prospective randomized clinical study. Restore System (R) implants (LifeCore Biomedical, Chaska MN, USA) were compared to Brånemark System (B) implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) in posterior partially edentulous sites and edentulous mandibles. Published clinical data supports the long term performance of Brånemark System implants2. Through the one to three year observation period, no significant differences could be found regarding complication rates. No statistically significant differences could be noted between the marginal bone level in both systems. The cumulative success rates of 95.5% (R) and 100% (B) were not statistically different. From a surgical point of view, the R implants were easier and quicker to place. While there were several differences between both systems prosthetically with advantages and disadvantages to each system, the prosthetic ease was quite similar. Further long term follow-up is necessary to compare the survival rate, complication rate, and marginal bone response between both systems.
The preliminary results of the study indicate no statistically significant difference in the complication rate, marginal bone level or implant survival between the Restore and Brånemark System implants from one to three years follow-up in identical sites. Continued follow-up is necessary to further evaluate the long-term performance of the Restore implant compared to the Brånemark implant.
1 Rosenberg ES, Torosian J. An evaluation of differences and similarities observed in fixture failure of five distinct implant systems. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1999.
2 Albrektsson T, Tahl E, Enbom L, Engevaill S, Enguist B, Eriksson A. et al. Osseointegrated oral implants. A Swedish multi-center study of 8139 consecutively inserted Nobelpharma implants, Jrnl of Perio, ’88; 59: 287-296.
Source of Support
LifeCore Biomedical, Chaska, MN USA
