Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) has become the main tool used to assess the osseointegration of dental implants. The objective of this study was to verify the relationship between the ISQ values with different prosthetic abutments and with the implant platform. The hypothesis was that ISQ values changes according to the abutment height. Twelve patients were included, whose contribution to the study was 31 dental implants (external hexagon connection implants, 4.1x10 mm). The temporary implant-supported crown and prosthetic components were removed and the following smartpegs were inserted, one at a time: type 1, in the implant platform (G1); type A3, in the microunit component with 1mm transmucosal height (G2) and type A3, in the microunit component with 5mm transmucosal height (G3). In all the smartpegs, RFA measurements were taken on mesial, distal, buccal and lingual surfaces. All evaluations were performed by a single calibrated examiner (ICC = 0.989). Data were analyzed by Friedman and Spearman correlation tests and log-linear marginal regression (p<0.05). The mean age of participants was 52.83 (± 3.77) years. There was statistically significant difference (p<0.001) among the mean ISQ of G1 (88.27 ±5.70); G2 (72.75 ±4.73) and G3 (66.33 ±3.67). There was statistically significant negative correlation between the ISQ and the measurement distance (rs:-0.852; p<0.001; R2:0.553). Measurement distance was significantly associated (p<0.001) with ISQ value in the log-linear regression. The abutment height has a significant impact on resonance frequency analysis measurements. The higher the transmucosal abutment height, the lower the implant stability quotient value. Clinically, the ISQ measured on the abutment cannot be compared with values measured on the implant platform.
Aim: Short implants are manufactured for use in atrophic regions of the jaw. Therefore, the current does not sufficiently reveal a direct correlation between the impact of implant length on implant survival. The purpose of this systematic review was to compile the evidence of short implant survival in atrophied jaws. Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches were performed by two independent reviewers in several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, for articles up to September 2015 using the following terms in some combinations: "short implant", "mandible/atrophied jaws", and "implant survival/ survival rate/ survival analysis". Results: The 19 included studies present in average 5.5 years (range 1.0-20.0 years) follow-up and 96.1% (range 73.4-100.0 percent) survival rate of the short implants in atrophied mandibular. Conclusions: This systematic review found evidences regarding to safety of short implant placement in atrophied jaws although stronger evidence is essential to confirm this finding.
Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study ResumoObjetivo: Avaliar e correlacionar os valores de densidade óssea radiográfica, altura óssea peri-implantar e de frequência de ressonância nos implantes curtos e convencionais instalados na região posterior da mandíbula após a instalação da prótese provisória. Material e método: Esse estudo piloto clínico prospectivo contou com a participação de 11 pacientes que foram divididos previamente em dois grupos: implantes curtos (n=18) (5,0 x 5,5 mm e 5,0 x 7,0 mm) e implantes convencionais (n=23) (4,0 x 10 mm e 4,0 x 11,5 mm). Foram executadas análise da frequência de ressonância, altura óssea e densidade óssea peri-implantar. Os implantes foram avaliados nos períodos T0 (imediatamente após a instalação do provisório), T1 (após 90 dias) e T2 (após 180 dias). Resultado: Não houve diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os grupos com relação a densidade óssea radiográfica (152,50 ± 15,39 vs. 157,60 ± 28,46, para implantes convencionais e curtos respectivamente no período T2), estabilidade dos implantes (Implantes convencionais: 66,76 ± 10,39 no período T0 e 61,85 ± 8,38 no período T2 vs. Implantes curtos: 57,50 ± 12,17 no período T0 e 61,53 ± 7,39 no período T2) e quanto a perda óssea periimplantar (0,03 mm vs. -0,17 mm, em implantes convencionais e curtos no período T2, respectivamente). Adicionalmente a isso, não foram detectados correlação significativa entre densidade radiográfica com altura óssea peri-implantar e nem com a frequência de ressonância. Conclusão: Verificou-se que os implantes curtos apresentaram um comportamento semelhante aos implantes de comprimento convencionais com relação à frequência de ressonância, a densidade radiográfica peri-implantar e a manutenção dos níveis ósseos periimplantares.Descritores: Reabsorção óssea; densidade óssea; próteses e implantes. AbstractObjective: To evaluate and correlate the values of radiographic bone density, peri-implant bone height and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) of short or conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible after installing a prosthesis. Material and method: Eleven patients were selected for this prospective parallel pilot study. The prostheses were supported by two types of implants: short implants (n = 18) (5.0 x 5.5 mm and 5.0 x 7.0 mm) and conventional implants (n = 23) (4.0 x10 mm and 4.0 x 11.5 mm). The implants were evaluated by RFA, by measuring the bone height, and peri-implant bone density. The implants were evaluated at the periods T0 (immediately after installation of the prosthesis), T1 (after 90 days), and T2 (after 180 days). Result: There were no statistically significant differences between groups with respect to radiographic bone density (152.50 ± 15.39 vs. 157.60 ± 28.46, for conventional and short implants, respectively at T2), stability of the implants (Conventional implants: 66.76 ± 10.39 at T0, and 61.85 ± 8.38 at T2 vs. Short implants: 57.50 ± 12.17 at T0, and 61.53 ± ...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.