Assessment of Stability of Craniofacial Implants by Resonant Frequency Analysis

Abstract

Implant stability is a principal precondition for the success of implant therapy. Extraoral implants (EO) are mainly used for anchoring of maxillofacial epithesis. However, assessment of implant stability is mostly based on principles derived from oral implants. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical stability of EO craniofacial disk implants (single, double, and triple) by resonance frequency analysis at different stages of the bone's healing. Twenty patients with orbital (11), nasal (5), and auricular (4) defects with 50 EO implants placed for epithesis anchorage were included. Implant stability was measured 3 times; after implant placement, at 3 months and at least after 6 months. A significant increase in implant stability values was noted between all of the measurements, except for triple-disk implants between third and sixth months, and screw implants between 0 and third months. Disk implants showed lower implant stability quotient (ISQ) values compared with screw implants. Triple-disk implants showed better stability compared with single and double-disk implants. Based on resonance frequency analysis values, disk implants could be safely loaded when their ISQ values are 38 (single disks), 47 (double disks), and 48 (triple disks). According to resonance frequency analysis, disk implant stability increased over time, which showed good osseointegration and increasing mineralization. Although EO screw implants showed higher ISQ values than disk implants, disk-type implants can be safely loaded even if lower values of stability are measured.

Microcomputed tomography cortical bone evaluation for craniofacial implantology

“…In the orbital region, the value of cortical thickness was also high (Ct.Th.1.9 mm), although the porosity was somewhat higher (Ct.Po. dimensions are often limited after surgery, for example nasal amputation, thus screw type implants often cannot be used [1,3]. However, disk implants present an optimal alternative whenever implants-retained craniofacial epithesis are indicated, especially when ''vertical'' bone substance is limited, because such implants require width rather than height of bone.…”

“…Glabella, piriform aperture (perinasal bone area) showed a smaller cortical thickness, (Ct.Th 1.5 mm; 1.4 mm). Because of relatively dense cortical bone in those areas, disk implants could be used [1,3,9]. When the microarchitectural parameters were higher (porosity and cortical thickness), as well as, when there is a sufficient amount of bone for triple disk implants it would be justified to use this kind of implants because it is better stability.…”

“…Majority of them have undergone previous tumor resections, which could cause the lack of the bone needed for implant placement. Good implant stability is important for stable maxillofacial prosthesis anchorage [1,2]. One of the most important factors for successful implant therapy is the bone quality and quantity [3].…”

Bite Reconstruction in the Aesthetic Zone Using One-Piece Bicortical Screw Implants

“…Follow-up was done after 3-, 6-, and 12-month intervals. Comparison of pre- and postprocedure radiographs clearly revealed elevated peri-implant marginal bone in response to the action of loading forces [ 8 , 9 ]. Very good aesthetic result of this treatment was achieved by the preservation of gingival papillae ( Figure 6 ).…”

The choise of an extraoral implant with a total facial defect

“…Хирургическая стоматология Surgical dentistry Введение Травмы, хирургические повреждения после удаления новообразований, а также генетические нарушения могут привести к уродству и дисфункции лица [1].…”