2021
DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2021.1875219
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of the dental implant macrogeometry and threads design on primary stability: an in vitro simulation on artificial bone blocks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

5
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies showed that the implant macrogeometry represents one of the most important factors for successfully achieving primary stability [ 35 , 36 ]. For this reason, the secondary outcome was to evaluate the impact of macro-topography on Ti-S surfaces, so the hGDFs’ proliferation and viability were measured on these discs, characterized by an additional linear (Ti-L) and waved grooved macrogeometry (Ti-W).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies showed that the implant macrogeometry represents one of the most important factors for successfully achieving primary stability [ 35 , 36 ]. For this reason, the secondary outcome was to evaluate the impact of macro-topography on Ti-S surfaces, so the hGDFs’ proliferation and viability were measured on these discs, characterized by an additional linear (Ti-L) and waved grooved macrogeometry (Ti-W).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bone atrophy of the alveolar ridges follows after tooth loss, especially in the jaw posterior regions. Hence, appropriate quantity and quality of the alveolar bone are needed to ensure the correct tridimensional implant positioning and obtain optimal esthetic and functional outcomes [ 14 , 17 , 18 ]. Several possible alternatives to treat bone atrophy are available, such as autogenous bone block onlays or inlays, guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures, inferior alveolar nerve repositioning, distraction osteogenesis, sinus floor elevation (SFE), ridge-splitting, and bone expansion [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The literature shows that an ISQ < 45 indicates a poor primary stability, and values >65 are considered to be the most favorable for implant stability [1,38]. In particular, in accordance with the manufacturer and the previous literature, the Ostell measurements can be used to classify the implant stability as good with ISQ > 70, medium with ISQ 60-69, and low with ISQ < 60 [24,39,40]. The results of this work showed significantly higher RFA values for long implants, with respect to the short ones, in all conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 80%