The primary purpose of this study was to compare 1-year implant success rates between hydroxyapatite (HA) nano-coated implants and uncoated sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) implants placed with a digital surgical guide in the posterior maxilla. Secondary aims were to evaluate peri-implant clinical parameters, placement accuracy, emergence angle, and the influence of abutment height.
✦ The floor
Discussion
Signed responses from readers of the wire.
No actionable change for audiologists — this is a dental implant RCT with no relevance to audiology, hearing loss, or hearing device practice.
This study has no relevance to the audiology field; it concerns dental implantology and should not have been routed to an audiology news pipeline.
- 01Single-blind RCT comparing hydroxyapatite nano-coated vs. uncoated sandblasted acid-etched dental implants.
- 02Implants were placed immediately post-extraction using a digital surgical guide.
- 03Primary outcome is implant success at 1-year follow-up.
- 04Study is dental/oral surgery in nature — no audiology or hearing science content.
Hydroxyapatite nano-coated implants were compared to uncoated implants for 1-year success rates in immediate placement.
studyunclear- PMID
- 42849969
- DOI
- 10.5051/jpis.2600520026.
- Journal
- Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science
- Publication type
- research_article
- Evidence level
- 1b
- Population
- Dental patients receiving immediate implant placement
- Intervention
- Hydroxyapatite nano-coated sandblasted acid-etched dental implants placed with digital surgical guide
- Comparator
- Uncoated sandblasted acid-etched dental implants
Primary outcomes
Implant success rate at 1 year