BIOACTIVE MICROSTRUCTURED ANTI MICROBIAL PRECOATED SURFACE IMPLANT VERSUS NON-COATED SURFACE IMPLANT IN TYPE 2 DIABETIC PATIENT IN THE MANDIBLE (A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL)

Introduction: Dental implants Surface properties significantly influence both biological and mechanical integration. As surface bio-treatment could accelerate and enhance bone regeneration, ensuring more successful implantation.Objectives: to compare the implant stability, pain intensity, wound healing and bone densification around two different implants one with bioactive surface coating and implant with non-coated surface in controlled type 2 diabetic patients.Materials and Methods: In a randomized clinical trial, ten patients with controlled type 2 diabetes and bilateral missing mandibular posterior teeth participated. Using a split-mouth technique, each patient received a non-coated implant on one side and a pre-coated surface implant on the opposite side of the posterior mandible than implants stability, postoperative pain intensity, wound healing, and bone density formation were compared between bioactive antimicrobial coated surface implants and non-coated implants.. Clinical and radiographic Assessments were conducted within the following postoperative 6-month for all patients.Results: The study compared non-coated titanium dental implants to bioactive Ca-P coated implants. the Ca-P pre-coated implants exhibited significantly higher primary and secondary stability than non-coated implants (p < 0.001). While, the non-coated implants reported lower postoperative pain levels (p = 0.05, p = 0.046). No statistically significant difference reported in wound healing (p > 0.05). However, Ca-P pre-coated implants demonstrated greater bone densification over time (p < 0.001) then non-coated implants.Conclusion: Both groups of implants showed satisfactory results; however, implants coated with Ca-P were particularly noted for enhancing implant stability and promoting bone density formation. Consequently, the pre-coated implants outperformed the non-coated implants.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Alexandria Dental Journal
Published
2025-04-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21608/adjalexu.2024.309385.1528
Primary Topic
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

BIOACTIVE MICROSTRUCTURED ANTI MICROBIAL PRECOATED SURFACE IMPLANT VERSUS NON-COATED SURFACE IMPLANT IN TYPE 2 DIABETIC PATIENT IN THE MANDIBLE (A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL)

Marwa Noureldin, Mervat Khalil, Dalinatul Ahmed
3 links
Alexandria Dental Journal
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
article

BIOACTIVE MICROSTRUCTURED ANTI MICROBIAL PRECOATED SURFACE IMPLANT VERSUS NON-COATED SURFACE IMPLANT IN TYPE 2 DIABETIC PATIENT IN THE MANDIBLE (A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL)

Marwa Noureldin, Mervat Khalil, Dalinatul Ahmed
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Dental implants Surface properties significantly influence both biological and mechanical integration. As surface bio-treatment could accelerate and enhance bone regeneration, ensuring more successful implantation.Objectives: to compare the implant stability, pain intensity, wound healing and bone densification around two different implants one with bioactive surface coating and implant with non-coated surface in controlled type 2 diabetic patients.Materials and Methods: In a randomized clinical trial, ten patients with controlled type 2 diabetes and bilateral missing mandibular posterior teeth participated. Using a split-mouth technique, each patient received a non-coated implant on one side and a pre-coated surface implant on the opposite side of the posterior mandible than implants stability, postoperative pain intensity, wound healing, and bone density formation were compared between bioactive antimicrobial coated surface implants and non-coated implants.. Clinical and radiographic Assessments were conducted within the following postoperative 6-month for all patients.Results: The study compared non-coated titanium dental implants to bioactive Ca-P coated implants. the Ca-P pre-coated implants exhibited significantly higher primary and secondary stability than non-coated implants (p < 0.001). While, the non-coated implants reported lower postoperative pain levels (p = 0.05, p = 0.046). No statistically significant difference reported in wound healing (p > 0.05). However, Ca-P pre-coated implants demonstrated greater bone densification over time (p < 0.001) then non-coated implants.Conclusion: Both groups of implants showed satisfactory results; however, implants coated with Ca-P were particularly noted for enhancing implant stability and promoting bone density formation. Consequently, the pre-coated implants outperformed the non-coated implants.

Alexandria Dental JournalVol. 0(0)
Alexandria University (EG)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 90%
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

BIOACTIVE MICROSTRUCTURED ANTI MICROBIAL PRECOATED SURFACE IMPLANT VERSUS NON-COATED SURFACE IMPLANT IN TYPE 2 DIABETIC PATIENT IN THE MANDIBLE (A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL) — Marwa Noureldin, Mervat Khalil, et al. · Alexandria Dental Journal (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS