Evaluation of marginal peri implant bone loss in machined surface dental implants versus roughened surface dental surface dental implant with 1 year follow up: A systematic review

Abstract

Introduction: Dental implant design, specifically implant surface characteristics, plays a crucial role in achieving successful osseointegration and long-term implant stability. With over 1,300 implant systems available, a range of configurations have emerged, categorized into macro-design (shape, threads, length) and micro-design (surface roughness). Roughened implant surfaces are widely used for their enhanced bone response, though they may increase the risk of peri-implantitis due to bacterial colonization. This review focuses on comparing machined versus roughened implant surfaces regarding peri-implantitis incidence, marginal bone loss, and implant failure rates. Aims and Objective: The chief objective of this systematic review is to evaluate and contrast the clinical results of dental implants with machined surfaces against those with roughened textures. The review specifically aims to analyze the following parameters: The frequency of peri-implantitis observed with each implant type, the extent of marginal bone loss around the implants, and the incidence of both biological and mechanical complications. Materials and Methods: A systematic analysis was carried out, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the study protocol was formally registered in the Prospero registry. (ID: CRD4202453761). Inclusion criteria targeted systemically healthy, non-smoking adults aged 18 and above, while exclusions included compromised health conditions, pregnancy, and non-compliance. Articles were selected from PubMed and Cochrane databases, and bias was assessed via Cochrane’s RevMan tool. Results: The review synthesized findings from three RCTs, revealing similar short-term outcomes for both implant types in supporting prostheses. Roughened surface implants displayed slightly lower peri-implantitis and implant failure rates, though differences were not statistically significant. Marginal bone loss was comparable across the studies, with minor differences favoring roughened implants in some trials. Conclusion: Both machined and roughened implants perform effectively in the short term, with roughened implants showing a marginal advantage in reducing early failures and peri-implantitis incidence. The evidence suggests roughened surfaces may be preferable in certain clinical situations; however, further large-scale, long-term studies are required to establish more definitive conclusions on optimal implant surface characteristics.