Rehabilitation of irradiated patients with chemically modified and conventional SLA implants: five‐year follow‐up

The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiological parameters of standard SLA surface implants compared to chemically modified hydrophilic SLActive implants in irradiated patients after the initial 12‐month loading period up to 5 years. Twenty patients with a mean age of 61·1 years were treated with dental implants after ablative surgery and radio‐chemotherapy of oral cancer. All patients were non‐smokers. The placement of 102 implants (50 SLA, 52 SLActive) was performed bilaterally according to a split‐mouth design. Mean crestal bone changes were evaluated using standardised orthopantomographies and clinical parameters. Data were analysed using a Kaplan–Meier curve, Mann–Whitney U‐test and two‐factorial non‐parametric analysis. The average observation period was 60 months. The amount of bone loss at the implant shoulder of SLA implants was mesial and distal 0·7 mm. The SLActive implants displayed a bone loss of mesial 0·6 mm as well as distal 0·7 mm after 5 years. Two SLA implants were lost before loading. One patient lost five implants due to recurrence of a tumour. The overall cumulative 12‐month, 3‐year and 5‐year survival rate of SLA implants was 92%, 80% and 75·8% and of SLActive implants 94·2%, 78·8% and 74·4%, respectively. Eighteen implants were considered lost because the patients had died. Sandblasted acid‐etched implants with or without a chemically modified surface can be used in irradiated patients with a high predictability of success. Lower implant survival rates in patients with irradiated oral cancer may be associated with systemic effects rather than peri‐implantitis.