Some Biomechanical and Histologic Characteristics of Early‐Loaded Locking Pin and Expandable Implants: A Pilot Histologic Canine Study

Huré, G; Aguado, Eric; Grizon, F.; Basle, Michel‐Félix; Chappard, Daniel

doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00025.x

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only a few reports in the literature have addressed expandable dental implants [ 44 – 47 ]. In 2001, Jo and co-authors reported about a 40-month prospective survival of an expandable standard-length implant (10–16 mm) for immediate loading.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They found a 3-year survival rate of 96.1% in the maxilla and of 94.8% in the mandible [ 46 ]. Huré and co-authors [ 47 ] performed a biomechanical and histologic canine study on early loaded expandable implants of 10- and 11.5-mm lengths. Six years later (2010), in orthopaedic surgery, an expandable implant was introduced [ 48 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2a, b ) represent high stability values [ 34 ]. Huré and co-authors [ 47 ] measured in their animal study the following stability values (expandable implant of ≥ 10-mm length): for primary stability, 53.6 ± 3.0 ISQ units, and for secondary stability (3 months after insertion), 59 ± 4.5 ISQ units. The evaluation of stability values during the osseointegration period was not possible in our trial due to submerged healing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, this aspect should be analysed under mechanical loading in vitro. Based on an earlier animal histologic study [ 47 ], as well as a clinical up-to-40-month study [ 46 ], which referred to comparable apically expandable implants, authors did not report any periapical inflammatory complications. To eliminate the potential risk of deep intrabony microleakage, it is questionable whether equal biomechanical stability values can be achieved only by the macrothread design avoiding any deep microgaps.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Novel expandable short dental implants in situations with reduced vertical bone height—technical note and first results

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeShort implants often have the disadvantage of reduced primary stability. The present study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new expandable short dental implant system intended to increase primary stability.MethodsAs a “proof of concept”, a prospective clinical cohort study was designed to investigate intraoperative handling, primary and secondary implant stability (resonance frequency analysis), crestal bone changes, implant survival and implant success, of an innovative short expandable screw implant. From 2014 until 2015, 9 patients (7–9-mm vertical bone height) with 30 implants (length 5–7 mm, diameter 3.75–4.1 mm) were recruited consecutively.ResultsAll 30 implants in the 9 patients (age 44 to 80 years) could be inserted and expanded without intraoperative problems. Over the 3-year follow-up period, the implant success rate was 28/30 (93.3%). The mean implant stability quotients (ISQ) were as follows: primary stability, 69.7 ± 10.3 ISQ units, and secondary stability, 69.8 ± 10.2 ISQ units (p = 0.780), both without significant differences between the maxilla and mandible (p ≥ 0.780). The mean crestal bone changes after loading were (each measured from the baseline) as follows: in the first year, 1.0 ± 0.9 mm in the maxilla and 0.7 ± 0.4 mm in the mandible, and in the second year, 1.3 ± 0.8 mm and 1.0 ± 0.7 mm, respectively.ConclusionsCompared to other prospective studies, in this indication, the success rate is acceptable. Implant stability shows high initial and secondary stability values. The system might present an extension of functional rehabilitation to the group of elderly patients with limited vertical bone height. Further long-term investigations should directly compare this compressive implant with standard short implants.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40729-017-0107-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%