Rehabilitation of irradiated patients with modified and conventional sandblasted acid-etched implants: preliminary results of a split-mouth study

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the success rate of chemically modified and conventional sandblasted acid‐etched surface (SLA) titanium implants in irradiated oral squamous cell carcinoma patients. Material and methods: 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 SLA and modSLA implants was performed bilaterally according to a split‐mouth design. All 102 implants (50 SLA, 52 modSLA) placed showed an unloaded healing time of 6 weeks in the mandible and 10 weeks in the maxilla. Mean crestal bone changes using standardized orthopantomographies and clinical parameters like pocket depths, mPII and mBI were evaluated. Results: Of 102 implants, 55 implants (27 SLA implants, 28 modSLA) were located in the maxilla and 47 implants (23 SLA, 24 modSLA) in the mandible. The average observation period was 14.4 months. The amount of bone loss at the implant shoulder of SLA implants was 0.4 mm mesial and 0.4 mm distal. The modSLA implants displayed a bone loss of mesial 0.3 mm and distal 0.3 mm. Two SLA implants were lost resulting in a success rate of 96%. The success rate of modSLA implants was 100%. Conclusion: Regarding the data found in this investigation, we can conclude that implants with chemically modified and conventional SLA titanium surface show high success rates in irradiated patients. SLA implants with or without a chemically modified surface regardless of the location can be restored with a high predictability of success at least in the short time range observed. To cite this article: Heberer S, Kilic S, Hossamo J, Raguse J‐D, Nelson K. Rehabilitation of irradiated patients with modified and conventional sandblasted, acid‐etched implants: preliminary results of a split‐mouth study. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22, 2011; 546–551 doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.02050.x