A comparison of the implant stability among various implant systems: clinical study

Abstract

PURPOSETo determine the change in stability of single-stage, three different design of implant systems in humans utilizing resonance frequency analysis for early healing period (24 weeks), without loading.MATERIAL AND METHODSTwenty-five patients were included into this study. A total of 45 implants, three different design of implant systems (group A,C,R) were placed in the posterior maxilla or mandible. The specific transducer for each implant system was used. ISQ (implant stability quotient) reading were obtained for each implant at the time of surgery, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24 weeks postoperatively. Data were analyzed for different implant type, bone type, healing time, anatomical locations.RESULTSFor each implant system, a two-factor mixed-model ANOVA demonstrated that a significant effect on ISQ values (group A = 0.0022, C = 0.017, R = 0.0018). For each implant system, in a two-factor mixed model ANOVA, and two-sample t-test, the main effect of jaw position (P > .005) on ISQ values were not significant.CONCLUSIONSAll the implant groups A, C and R, the change patterns of ISQ over time differed by bone type. Implant stability increased greatly between week 0 and week six and showed slow increase between week six and six months (plateau effect).

Implant stability in the posterior maxilla: a controlled clinical trial

“…Secondary stability comes from regeneration and remodeling of the bone and tissue around the implant after insertion, and it mainly depends on the micro/nanotopographical features of the implant [13][14][15][16][17][18][22][23][24]; however, it seems to be highly dependent on the primary stability [10,22,23].…”

“…Primary stability comes from the mechanical engagement of the fixture with cortical bone [13][14][15][16][17][18]. It is determined by the quantity and quality of the available bone at implant placement, but also from the surgical procedure [10,15,16] and from the dimensions (length, diameter) and design (macrotopographical features) of the fixture [3,4,8,10,11].…”

“…In modern implantology, with the introduction of surgical and prosthetic protocols such as the immediate placement of implants in fresh postextraction sockets [19,[24][25][26] and immediate functional loading [19,20,27], it is very important to quantify implant stability at various timeframes, in order to have a long-term prognosis for the implants placed [10,[14][15][16][17][18]. Therefore, the employment of simple, clinically applicable noninvasive tests to assess implant stability and osseointegration can be considered valuable [12][13][14][15][16][17][18]23].…”

“…Implant stability is key for clinical success [13,14]. The concept of primary stability is related to the lack of mobility of the implant after its placement in the implant bed [13][14][15][16][17][18] and to the measurement of the consistency of bone/implant complex [15][16][17][18][19][20]. There are two types of implant stability: primary and secondary stability [18][19][20][21][22][23].…”

“…Therefore, the employment of simple, clinically applicable noninvasive tests to assess implant stability and osseointegration can be considered valuable [12][13][14][15][16][17][18]23]. So far, several nondisruptive methods have been suggested to evaluate the implant stability, such as percussion tests, radiography, insertion torque (IT) measurement [12][13][14][15][16][17][18], and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) with the implant stability quotient (ISQ) scale [12][13][14][15][16][17][18]23]. Nowadays, the most objective and commonly used tests to measure primary stability are IT and RFA by means of ISQ measurements: the IT measures the rotational stability while the ISQ measures the axial stability of the implant [12,[18][19][20][21][22][23].…”