article = {RGM-2018-1-105}
title = {A 6 years follow-up comparison of two dental implants: bioactive vs DAE surface, a clinical case report}
journal = {International Journal of Regenerative Medicine}
year = {2018}
issn = {2613-5914}
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.31487/j.RGM.2018.10.005}
url = {https://www.sciencerepository.org/a-6-years-follow-up-comparison-of-two-dental-implants-bioactive-vs-DAE-surface-a-clinical-case-report_RGM-1-105 
author = {Francesco Saverio  Ludovichetti,Maurizio Ludovichetti,}
keywords = {Dental implants, type 1 Collagen, bioactive surface}
abstract ={Introduction: The aim of the present study is to describe a case report of lower molars substitution with 2
different dental implants. One with a DAE surface and one with a type 1 collagen coated surface.
Case presentation: In the present study, a 54-year-old man presented the absence of the first and second
molars both on the left and on the right mandible. After clinical and radiographic evaluation, implant therapy
was chosen to substitute the missing teeth. On the right mandible, a DAE surface implant was placed while
on the left mandible, a bovine Type 1 collagen of dermal origin (custom made medical device) surface
implant was placed. A radiographic 6 years follow up was performed.
Discussion: The Type 1 collagen coated surface dental implant did not show any marginal bone loss after
6 years, moreover, it showed a bone gain after 3 months from its placement and kept it for 6 years while the
traditional surface implant showed an immediate marginal bone loss.
}