Effect of length, diameter, intraoral location on implant stability

Shiffler, Kyle; Lee, David; Rowan, Mark; Aghaloo, Tara; Pi-Anfruns, Joan; Moy, Peter K.

doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2016.06.016

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to the studies on conventional implants, all of the failures reported were related to biological loss of the implants, and not to mechanical failure [ 23 ]. With respect to the biological aspects of implant treatment, longer implants have a larger surface area, which improves the initial implant stability [ 24 ]. Hence, more short implants fail prior to mechanical loading [ 25 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Length of Mini Dental Implants Affect Their Resistance to Failure by Overloading?

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the failure resistance of different lengths of mini dental implants from the same manufacturer, and to assess their failure following overloading. Materials and Methods: According to the ISO 14801, 15 mini dental implants 2.4 mm in diameter, with lengths of 8.5 mm, 10 mm, or 13 mm, were subjected to compression loading until failure using a universal testing machine. The mean load-to-failure values for each length of the mini dental implants were calculated and analysed using SPSS®, via one-way ANOVA (p < 0.05). Results: The mean load to failure for mini dental implants was 329 N (SD 6.23), 326 N (SD 5.95), and 325 N (SD 6.99) for the 13 mm, 10 mm, and 8.5 mm implants, respectively. A comparison of means showed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.70). The tested mini dental implants exhibited bending failure modes below the first thread. Conclusion: Under high compressive loading testing, there was no effect of the length on the failure of the mini dental implants following overloading. Moreover, all tested mini dental implants with different lengths showed the same failure mode and distortion location.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Length of Mini Dental Implants Affect Their Resistance to Failure by Overloading?

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These data agree with prior studies that found no correlation between implant diameter and implant stability. 22 The perception that longer and larger implants have greater stability may not be accurate. Implant design and the surrounding bone may have a more significant effect on implant stability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of implant design, length, diameter, and anatomic region on implant stability: a randomized clinical trial

Moreira¹,

Rosa²,

Freitas³

et al. 2021

j.rpemd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate the influence of implant geometry and anatomical region on implant stability. Methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 45 patients, in whom a total of 79 implants were placed: 40 MIS C1 Implants and 39 MIS Seven Implants. The implant stability quotient was measured using resonance frequency analysis immediately after implant placement and 8 weeks later with an Osstell Mentor device. Results: 76 implants were analyzed. The implant stability quotient was statistically significantly higher for secondary stability than primary stability (68.7±8,6 vs. 65.2±10.3, respectively, p=0.023). Considering primary stability, no statistical differences were found between the implant lengths 8.0 mm, 10.0 mm, 11.0 mm, and 11.5 mm (67.9±7.6, 63.9±10, 57.2±11.1, and 66.4±11.3, respectively, p=0.312). The same was observed for secondary stability (68.4±9.4, 67.9±9.3, 74.7±1.5, and 69.2±7.9, respectively, p=0.504). Also, there were no statistically significant differences between the implant diameters 3.75 mm and 4.20 mm concerning primary stability (64.3±8.7 and 66.1±11.7 respectively, p=0.445) or secondary stability (68.8±8.2 and 68.7±9.1 respectively, p=0.930). Regarding implant design, a statistically significant difference was found only for secondary stability, favoring MIS Seven implants (p=0.048). The intraoral location was statistically significant for both primary and secondary stability, as these were higher on the anterior maxilla than the posterior maxilla and mandible (p<0.05). Conclusions: The diameter and length of the implants studied did not influence their stability. Implant design may influence secondary stability, whereas intraoral location has a relevant effect on primary and secondary stability.

show abstract

“…The results of the present study are in agreement with different clinical studies. 14,20,31 It has been noted, in a clinical study that after implant placement there is a dip in ISQ values due to bone remodeling. 20 However, in due time the ISQ values increases due to formation of matured lamellar bone around the implants and hence the higher ISQ values are noted 4 months post implant placement.…”

Section: Effect Of Osteotome and Conventional Drilling On Implant Sta...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Bone Levels, ISQ Trends, and Implant Survival Rates Between Conventional Drilling and Osteotome Technique Using Implants of Varied Lengths: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Lakha¹,

Hämmerle²,

Kheur³

et al. 2023

Int J Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE To assess marginal bone loss and implant stability when implant site preparation was performed with conventional drilling vs the osteotome technique in the posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METH-ODS A total of 30 patients (age 46.97 ± 7.48 years) receiving 60 implants were enrolled in this study. In each patient, implant site preparation was performed using conventional drilling (control group; n = 30) or the osteotome technique (test group; n = 30). Implant sites were further divided into groups based on implant length (implant length < 10 mm, implant length ≥ 10 mm). Marginal bone level (MBL) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were evaluated at the time of crown placement and 1 year thereafter. Independent and paired t tests were used for intergroup and intragroup comparison, respectively. RESULTS The test group showed statistically significantly higher initial ISQ (ISQi) and final ISQ (ISQf) values (ISQi: 61 ± 3.6; ISQf: 64.08 ± 3.7) in comparison to the control group (ISQi: 58.01 ± 4.6; ISQf: 61.32 ± 4.8). Statistically significantly higher mean MBL was noted in the control group (-0.33 mm ± 0.12 mm) compared to the test group (-0.26 mm ± 0.10 mm). Higher MBL was noted in the test group (-0.32 mm ± 0.09 mm) compared to the control group (-0.30 mm ± 0.14 mm) for implants < 10 mm in length. For implants ≥ 10 mm, significantly higher marginal bone loss was noted in the control (-0.37 mm ± 0.09 mm) compared to the test (-0.19 mm ± .06 mm) group. CONCLUSION The osteotome technique could be used as an alternative technique to conventional drilling, especially when implants longer than 10 mm are planned in the posterior maxilla.

show abstract

Effect of length, diameter, intraoral location on implant stability

Cited by 18 publications

References 22 publications

Does the Length of Mini Dental Implants Affect Their Resistance to Failure by Overloading?

Does the Length of Mini Dental Implants Affect Their Resistance to Failure by Overloading?

Influence of implant design, length, diameter, and anatomic region on implant stability: a randomized clinical trial

Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Bone Levels, ISQ Trends, and Implant Survival Rates Between Conventional Drilling and Osteotome Technique Using Implants of Varied Lengths: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About