Factors Influencing Primary Dental Implant Stability Remain Unclear

Cooper, Lyndon F.

doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2009.12.005

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The interaction between the implant and the adjacent bone immediately after its insertion depends mainly on the macrogeometry of the implant and the topography of its surface [41,42]. However, some studies in the literature still question the influence of surface treatment on the primary stability [12,[43][44][45][46] corroborated the results obtained in the present study, where the two implant designs did not present a statistical difference in the insertion torque values between the treated and non-treated surfaces.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Biomechanical Effects of a New Macrogeometry Design of Dental Implants: An In Vitro Experimental Analysis

Gehrke

Pérez-Díaz

Mazón

et al. 2019

JFB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the present study was to measure and compare the insertion torque, removal torque, and the implant stability quotient by resonance frequency analysis in different polyurethane block densities of two implant macrogeometries. Four different polyurethane synthetic bone blocks were used with three cortical thickness: Bone 1 with a cortical thickness of 1 mm, Bone 2 with a cortical thickness of 2 mm, Bone 3 with a cortical thickness of 3 mm, and Bone 4, which was totally cortical. Four groups were created in accordance with the implant macrogeometry (n = 10 per group) and surface treatment: G1-regular implant design without surface treatment; G2-regular implant design with surface treatment; G3-new implant design without surface treatment; G4-new implant design with surface treatment. All implants used were 4 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length and manufactured in commercially pure titanium (grade IV) by Implacil De Bortoli (São Paulo, Brazil). The implants were installed using a computed torque machine, and following installation of the implant, the stability quotient (implant stability quotient, ISQ) values were measured in two directions using Osstell devices. The data were analyzed by considering the 5% level of significance. All implant groups showed similar mean ISQ values without statistical differences (p > 0.05), for the same synthetic bone block: for Bone 1, the value was 57.7 ± 3.0; for Bone 2, it was 58.6 ± 2.2; for Bone 3, it was 60.6 ± 2.3; and for Bone 4, it was 68.5 ± 2.8. However, the insertion torque showed similar higher values for the regular macrogeometry (G1 and G2 groups) in comparison with the new implant macrogeometry (G3 and G4 groups). The analysis of the results found that primary stability does not simply depend on the insertion torque but also on the bone quality. In comparison with the regular implant macrogeometry, the new implant macrogeometry decreased the insertion torque without affecting the implant stability quotient values.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Biomechanical Effects of a New Macrogeometry Design of Dental Implants: An In Vitro Experimental Analysis

Gehrke

Pérez-Díaz

Mazón

et al. 2019

JFB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The torque values obtained for MDIs in mandibles of edentulous patients ranged from 3 to 23.7 Ncm, similar to the range found by Dilek et al However, implant survival was similar to the reported data for conventional implants (Sohrabi et al, 2012;Cooper, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Insertion Torque of Mini Dental Implants and their Failure Risk after Immediate Loading

Jofré¹,

Conrady²,

Lagos-Álvarez³

2014

Int. J. Odontostomat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A minimum insertion torque has been suggested for immediate function of regular diameter implants. Even when there is a growing tendency to use Mini Dental Implants (MDIs) for immediate function of dentures, there is no clinical data concerning MDIs insertion torque, nor its influence on implant failure. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the insertion torque of immediate loaded MDIs in edentulous patients and its association with risk failure. Ninety MDIs were placed in the anterior mandible of 45 edentulous patients, two per patient. The insertion torque was recorded with an electronic device and failures were documented during two years follow-up. All implants were immediately loaded with overdentures, using ball (44/90) or bar (46/90) attachments. A Kaplan-Meier survival probability estimator and a fitted multiple Cox regression model were performed to establish the influence of insertion torque and other clinical parameters on implant risk failure. The average insertion torque of 90 MDIs was 12.5±7.8 Ncm. A cumulative survival rate of 94.2% (5/90) was found by means of the Kaplan-Meier estimation. The Cox proportional-hazards regression model showed no association between insertion torque and MDIs failure. MDIs have much lower insertion torque than average conventional implants. The insertion torque of MDIs immediately loaded with mandibular dentures, seems not to be a risk factor associated to failure, at two years follow-up.

show abstract

“…Primary stability is determined by bone density and cortical bone thickness, a fact that explains why it is easier to obtain a better stability in mandibular implants than in maxillary ones (Seong et al, 2009) as it entails preparing the implant bed (incorrect tapping, too-wide ostectomy) or in those cases in which the implant is immediately placed after an exodontic procedure (Becker et al, 2011;Cooper, 2010) and becomes manifest by insertion torque values, so a low insertion torque value (<10Ncm) will determine a higher risk of osseointegration failure (type bone IV), whereas a too-high torque value (>45Ncm) could lead to a bone compression which would result in a bone necrosis (type bone I), and in an osseointegration failure ). Cooper (Cooper, 2010) described, in a study on 1084 implants, that there was a 6.43-fold lower risk of primary implant stability failure in the anterior mandible than in other locations.…”

Section: Lack Of Primary Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cooper (Cooper, 2010) described, in a study on 1084 implants, that there was a 6.43-fold lower risk of primary implant stability failure in the anterior mandible than in other locations. The maxilla had a 2.7-fold higher risk of primary stability failure versus the mandible.…”

Section: Lack Of Primary Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%