Tapered and cylindrical implants have similar biological behavior during the healing process. Bone site characteristics can influence insertion torque and implant stability.

Show to the clinician that the macrogeometry and drilling protocols did not interfere in the clinical behavior of the implants during the healing process. However, the IT, primary and secondary stability, is quite dependent of the surgeon experience.

This randomized clinical trial evaluated the insertion torque (IT), primary, and secondary stability of dental implants with different surface treatments during the osseointegration period. Nineteen patients with bilateral partial edentulism in the posterior mandibular region were randomly allocated to two implant brand groups and received implants with different surface treatments in the opposite site of the arch: Osseotite and Nanotite or SLA and SLActive. During implant placement, the maximum IT was recorded using a surgical motor equipped with a graphical user interface. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was assessed immediately after the IT, and was measured weekly via resonance frequency analysis during 3 months. The data were analyzed by a one-way ANOVA, the Bonferroni test, paired t tests and Pearson's correlation coefficient. The IT values were similar (p > 0.05) for all implant types ranging from 43.82 ± 6.50 to 46.84 ± 5.06. All implant types behaved similarly until the 28th day (p > 0.05). Between 35 and 56 days, Osseotite and SLActive showed lower ISQ values (p < 0.001) compared to Nanotite and SLA implants. After 56 days, only Osseotite maintained significantly lower ISQ values than the other implants (p < 0.05). After 91 days the ISQ values were significantly higher than the baseline for all four implant types (p < 0.001). The ISQ and IT values were significantly correlated at the baseline and at the final evaluation for Osseotite, Nanotite, and SLActive implants (p < 0.001). After 91 days, ISQ and IT values were only significantly correlated for the Osseotite implants (p < 0.05). All implants types exhibited acceptable primary and secondary stability.

No abstract

Aim: This study characterized the implant surfaces available on the Brazilian market in terms of topography, chemical composition, and roughness. Methods: The following brands were selected according to their surfaces: Kopp (Ko), Signo Vinces (Sv), Neodent (Ne), Osseotite (Os) NanoTite (Nt), SIN (Si), Titanium Fix (Tf), conventional Straumann (Str), Active SLA (SLA). The morphological analysis and the alloy impurities and implant surface contaminants were analyzed by SEM-EDS. Surface roughness parameters and 3-D reconstructions were obtained by laser microscopy (20x). Two distinct areas were evaluated: i) the cervical portion (no surface treatment), and ii) the middle third (treated surface). Results: The characterization of the implant surfaces by SEM showed morphological differences between the thread geometries and surface morphology at 800x and 2000x magnification. The EDS elemental analysis showed a predominance of titanium (Ti) for all implants. The SLA surface showed only peaks of Ti while other implants brands showed traces of impurities and contaminants including Al, C, PR, F, Mg, Na, Ni, O, P, and SR. The implant surface roughness in the cervical portion did not exceed Ra 0.5–1.0 μm, constituting a minimally rough surface and obtaining acceptable standards for this region. Only Nt, Str, and SLA presented Ra above 2 μm in the middle third area showing a rough surface favorable for osseointegration. Conclusion: This study concluded that there is no established standard for morphology, chemical composition and implant surface roughness that allows a safe comparison between the available dental implant surfaces. National implant brands generally contain more impurities and surface contaminants than their international counterparts and were consequently more sensitive to the surface treatment techniques.