title: Conventional SLA and chemically modified SLA implants in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus--a randomized controlled trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential for a chemically modified Sand blasted, Large grit, Acid etched (SLA) surface, compared with a conventional SLA surface, to enhance implant healing and integration in poorly controlled diabetic patients, a group previously demonstrated to have compromises and delays in implant stabilization during the metabolically active healing period following implant placement.
  
  
  METHODS
  The study enrolled 24 patients with type 2 diabetes, baseline HbA1c levels between 7.5-11.4%, and a minimum of two posterior mandibular tooth sites at least 4 months following extraction and appropriate for implant placement. Each patient, at a randomly selected site, received an implant with the conventional SLA surface; at the second site, the patient received an implant with the chemically modified SLA (modSLA) surface. Thus, 48 study implants were placed. Implant stability was assessed using Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA). Readings were taken from the buccal and proximal directions for each implant. Implant stability (ISQ) was assessed at the time of surgical placement (baseline) and 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 16 weeks following implant placement.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No significant differences in implant stability were observed between conventional SLA implants and modSLA implants, and the time courses of implant stabilization following implant placement were similar for the two implant types. Baseline ISQ and minimum ISQ was slightly higher in subjects with higher HbA1c levels, but were similar during 12-16 weeks following implant placement. Forty-seven (98%) of the 48 implants were determined to be successfully osseointegrated and continued to restoration.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Implant stabilization was similar for the conventional SLA and chemically modified SLA implants in type 2 diabetic patients with relatively poor glycemic control. Furthermore, this study demonstrated clinically successful implant placement even in poorly controlled diabetic patients.
authors.affiliation: Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
authors.forename: Namita
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Khandelwal
authors.forename: Thomas W
authors.initials: TW
authors.lastname: Oates
authors.forename: Adriana
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Vargas
authors.forename: Peggy P
authors.initials: PP
authors.lastname: Alexander
authors.forename: John D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Schoolfield
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Alex McMahan
mesh_terms: D000134:Acid Etching, Dental; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D003758:Dental Implantation, Endosseous / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D015921:Dental Implants; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D003924:Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / Q000150:complications*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007576:Jaw, Edentulous, Partially / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D013499:Surface Properties; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014945:Wound Healing
chemical_list: D015921:Dental Implants