Correlation Between Implant Geometry, Implant Surface, Insertion Torque, and Primary Stability: In Vitro Biomechanical Analysis

Falco, Alessandra; Berardini, Marco; Trisi, Paolo

doi:10.11607/jomi.6285

Cited by 88 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The presence of osseointegration is clinically identified via the asymptomatic fixation of the implant to the surrounding bone, and histologically via direct contact between the bone and the implant without the interference of the soft tissue [8][9][10]. Various factors contribute to higher IPS values, such as bone quality and quantity [11], implant design [12,13], and surgical technique [14,15]. Also, systemic factors, such as age, metabolic diseases (diabetes, osteoporosis), and smoking can negatively influence secondary implant stability [16][17][18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Under-Drilling versus Hybrid Osseodensification Technique: Differences in Implant Primary Stability and Bone Density of the Implant Bed Walls

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of two implant bed preparation techniques on the implant primary stability (IPS) and the bone density of the implant site. We completed 40 implant bed osteotomies in pig ribs using two techniques: osseodensification (OD) plus under-drilling (UD) with universal osseodensification drills (Test A), and under-drilling alone with drills of the same implant system (Test B). Implants with a 4.1 mm diameter and 10 mm length were inserted, and the IPS was evaluated with three methods: (insertion torque (IT), periotest (PTV), and resonance frequency analysis (RFA). The bone density was evaluated using micro-computed tomography. ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test were used for comparison of the IPS values, and Kruskal–Wallis was used to evaluate the bone density. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The tested B technique (UD) achieved a higher IPS compared to the Test A technique (OD + UD) for all the evaluation methods (p < 0.05). Bone density was higher at the apical and middle region in Test A compared to Test B and control sites (p < 0.05). We concluded that although the bone density increased with the hybrid OD technique with universal drills, implant beds prepared with UD using drills with geometry similar to that of the implant are more efficient at increasing IPS values.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Under-Drilling versus Hybrid Osseodensification Technique: Differences in Implant Primary Stability and Bone Density of the Implant Bed Walls

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Primary dental implant stability (PS), i.e., an absence of micromotion of the implant immediately after implant placement, has been reported to have an important role in implant osseointegration [17][18][19]. PS seemed to be closely correlated to bone quality and quantity, implant macrostructure, implant length and diameter, surgical technique, and the fitting of the implant into the site [17][18][19][20][21]. Bone density has been correlated to the amount of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) [19], and BIC to the PS [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short vs. Standard Length Cone Morse Connection Implants: An In Vitro Pilot Study in Low Density Polyurethane Foam

Comuzzi¹,

Tumedei

Piattelli

et al. 2019

Symmetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the investigation was to evaluate the insertion torque, pull-out torque and implant stability quotient (ISQ) of short implants (SI) and standard length implants (ST) inserted into linearly elastic and constitutive isotropic symmetry polyurethane foam blocks. Short dental titanium implants with a Cone Morse connection and a conical shape (test implants: Test Implant A—diameter 5.5 mm and length 6 mm) (Test Implant B—diameter 5.5 mm and length 5 mm) were used for the present in vitro investigation. ST implants (4 mm diameter and 10 mm length), with a Cone Morse connection and a conical shape, were used as Control Implant A and as Control Implants B. These two latter implants had a different macro design. A total of 20 implants (5 Test A, 5 Test B, 5 Control A and 5 Control B) were used for the present research. The results were similar when comparing the Test A and Test B implants. The test implants had very good stability in polyurethane 14.88–29.76 kgm3 density blocks. The insertion torque values were very high for both types of test implant (25–32 Ncm on 14.88 kgm blocks, and up to 45 Ncm in 29.76 kgm3 blocks). The pull-out test values were very similar to the insertion torque values. The ISQ values were significantly high with 75–80 in 14.88 kgm3 blocks, and 78–83 in 29.76 kgm3 blocks. No differences were found in the values of the Control A and Control B implants. In both these implants, the insertion torque was quite low in the 14.88 kgm3 blocks (16–28 Ncm). Better results were found in the 29.76 kgm3 blocks. The pull-out values for these control implants were slightly lower than the insertion torque values. High ISQ values were found in both control implants (57–80). When comparing SI and ST implants, the SI had a similar if not better performance in low quality polyurethane foam blocks (14.88–29.76 kgm), corresponding to D3 and D4 bone.

show abstract

“…The success of a dental implant is strongly affected by a number of biomechanical factors, including the type of loading, the material properties of both the implant and the prosthesis, the implant geometry, surface structure, and quality, the quantity of the surrounding bone, the nature of the implant-bone interface and the surgical procedures applied. 4 Moreover, dental implant positioning can influence the masticatory stress distribution over the screwed prosthodontics restoration and over the surrounding bone. 5,6 The distribution of stress and strain, over the mandibular bone and the osseointegrated implant is fundamental for long-term stability of the implant itself.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current state‐of‐the‐art and future perspectives of the three main modern implant‐dentistry concerns: Aesthetic requirements, mechanical properties, and peri‐implantitis prevention

López‐Píriz

Cabal

Goyos‐Ball³

et al. 2019

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of permanent tooth replacement goes back to the year 2000 BC at least, when carved bamboo pegs were used to replace missing teeth in ancient China. The phenomenon of osseointegration, however, was not verified until the mid‐1960s, when Branemark discovered that titanium could integrate to bone. Since then, the osseointegration capacity of implants has been profoundly investigated and implants as such have evolved enormously in all possible aspects, from material selection and processing to specific surface engineering, among many others. This review article, in particular, focuses on dental implants and aims to introduce the main concerns involved in modern dentistry, concentrating especially on the importance of finding an effective way to prevent peri‐implantitis. In this sense, strategies such as shifting from metal to ceramic implant components and applying novel antimicrobial antibiotic‐free coatings seem to be taking the lead. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A, 2019.

show abstract

Correlation Between Implant Geometry, Implant Surface, Insertion Torque, and Primary Stability: In Vitro Biomechanical Analysis

Cited by 88 publications

References 0 publications

Under-Drilling versus Hybrid Osseodensification Technique: Differences in Implant Primary Stability and Bone Density of the Implant Bed Walls

Under-Drilling versus Hybrid Osseodensification Technique: Differences in Implant Primary Stability and Bone Density of the Implant Bed Walls

Short vs. Standard Length Cone Morse Connection Implants: An In Vitro Pilot Study in Low Density Polyurethane Foam

Current state‐of‐the‐art and future perspectives of the three main modern implant‐dentistry concerns: Aesthetic requirements, mechanical properties, and peri‐implantitis prevention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About