Study Year of publication Study design Follow-up
(years)
Number of implants/number of patients Prevalence of peri-implantitis Significance Peri-implantitis definition
Turned implants Rough surface implants Turned implants Rough surface implants
Astrand et al. [41] 2004 Continuity of the study Astrand et al. [41].
Prospective randomized study, split-mouth design
3 73 (Brånemark System®; Nobel Biocare AB, Goteborg, Sweden)/
28 patients
77 (TPS®; Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland)/
28 patients
0 implants 7 implants (9.1%) The difference statistically significant Infection including purulent discharge and bone loss
Moberg et al. [42] 2001 Prospective randomized study 3 102 (Brånemark System®;Nobel Biocare AB, Goteborg, Sweden)/
20 patients
106 (TPS®; Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland)/
20 patients
1 implants 3 implants Not indicated Peri-implant infection with bone reduction
Ravald et al. [43] 2012 Prospective randomized controlled study 12 - 15 177 (Brånemark System®; Nobel Biocare AB, Goteborg, Sweden) 176 (TPS®; Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland) 9 implants (5%) 10 implants (6%) NR Bone loss ≥ 2 mm and bleeding or pus on probing
Renvert et al. [44] 2012 Prospective clinical trial 13 102/22 patients machine-etched (Brånemark System®; Nobel Biocare AB, Goteborg, Sweden) 132 implants/19 patients
(TiOblast™ implants; Astra Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden)
12 implants (11.5%) 9 implants (7.1%) No difference in the incidence of peri-implantitis over a period of 13 years as an effect implant surface and design was found. Peri-implantitis incidence was defined as bone loss ≥ 1 mm after 1 year, and with BOP or suppuration
Polizzi et al. [45] 2013 Retrospective study (both types of implants in the same patient) 10 257 (Brånemark System®; Nobel Biocare AB, Goteborg, Sweden)/
96 patients
243 moderately rough oxidized surfaced (TiUnite®; Nobel Biocare AB, Goteborg, Sweden)/
96 patients
1 implant 9 implants Peri-implantitis diagnosed in 4 patients (4.2%) and 10 implants (2%), 9 being TiUnite® implants and 1 turned (significance not indicated) Mucosal lesion associated with suppuration and deepened pockets but always accompanied by loss of supporting marginal bone (Lindhe and Meyle [20])
Vandeweghe et al. [46] 2016 Retrospective study At least 10 years in function (mean 172 [SD 42] months; range 120 to 252) 76 (Southern Implant System®; Southern Implants, Irene, South Africa)/
NR
121 moderately rough surface, obtained by sandblasting and chemical cleaning (Southern Implant System®; Southern Implants, Irene, South Africa)/
NR
NR NR Prevalence of peri-implantitis 4.1% in turned and moderately rough implants, with no significant difference between (P = 0.7) PD > 6 mm in combination with BOP/
suppuration and attachment loss/bone loss of 2.5 mm
de Araújo Nobre and Malo [47] 2014 Case-control study At least 1 year in function 296 (Brånemark System®; Nobel Biocare AB, Goteborg, Sweden)/
NR
1054 moderately rough oxidized surfaced (TiUnite®; Nobel Biocare AB, Goteborg, Sweden)/
NR
74 (5.5)% 196 (14.5)% Machined implant surface identified as a risk factor for peri-implant pathology
(P = 0.015; OR = 1.46)
Peri-implant pathology was diagnosed through: peri-implant pockets ≥ 5 mm diagnosed through probing of the peri-implant sulcus/pocket using a probe calibrated to 0.25 N, bleeding on probing; bone loss visible to X-ray; and attachment loss equal to or greater than 2 mm

TPS = titanium plasma sprayed; BOP = bleeding on probing; PD = probing depth; NR = not reported.