The Survival Rate of RBM Surface versus SLA Surface in Geometrically Identical Implant Design

Introduction: Although many studies have been conducted to compare the survival rate of dental implants with different degree of roughness, there is scarcity of studies that compare the survival rate of implants with two different surfaces and have geometrically identical body design. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and discuss the difference in survival rates between two geometrically identical implant groups with two different surfaces to help understand the effect of implant surface roughness on their survival rate. Materials and methods: The data in this study were obtained retrospectively from the consecutive analysis of anonymous database at New York University College of Dentistry. The clinical records for 161 patients (102 males, and 59 females) were gathered. The study included 280 implants of the same identical geometrical design and had either RBM or SLA surface. The follow up time since the implants were restored ranged from 4 to 32 months (average 18 months). Results: A total of nine implants have failed in six patients. The overall survival rate of the 280 implants was 96.7%. The first group included 167 RBM implants while the second group included 113 SLA implants. Only one implant from the SLA group was lost compared to eight implants that have failed from the RBM group. The SLA implants group had higher survival rate of 99.1% while RBM implants group was found to have a survival rate of 95.2%. Conclusions: Within the limitation of this study, geometrically identical implants with either RBM or SLA surface have a very comparable survival rates at least in the short term. However, the SLA surface seems to be superior in the posterior maxilla with poor bone. Since the overall failure rate is very low, more studies with higher subjects number and longer follow up are needed.