AICRG, Part V: Factors Influencing Implant Stability at Placement and Their Influence on Survival of Ankylos Implants

Morris, Harold F.; Ochi, Shigeru; Orenstein, Ira H.; Petrazzuolo, Vincent

doi:10.1563/1548-1336(2004)30<162:apvfii>2.0.co;2

Cited by 22 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This concept concurs with Morris et al (8), who described less stability in the maxilla than in mandible, although they measured stability with the Periotest system. Our study measured the stability by RFA (ISQ) and implant insertion torque (Ncm).…”

Section: Location Vs Isq and Insertion Torquesupporting

confidence: 88%

Relation between bone density and primary implant stability

Farré-Pagés

Augé-Castro²,

Alaejos-Algarra³

et al. 2011

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: This study aims to relate bone density in Hounsfield units (Hu) with the primary implant stability measured by insertion torque (Ncm) and resonance frequency analysis (ISQ). Materials and Methods: Ten patients were included in this study. A total of 54 implant sites were provided from 10 computerized tomography scans. The computerized tomography scan was used for the preoperative evaluation of bone density for each patient. The bone mean density around planned implants was determined with Physioplanet TM software. Bone quality according resistance to drilling, insertion torque and resonance frequency measurements were recorded. Results: A statistically significant relationship was observed between bone quality density and location with ISQ values. Conclusions: This research demonstrates a strong relationship between the bone density values from computerized tomography and the location in the maxillaries. A correlation exists between bone quality, according to the Lekholm & Zarb classification, and Hu computerized tomography values. The primary implant stability measured with resonance frequency analysis depends on bone density values, bone quality and implant location.

show abstract

Section: Location Vs Isq and Insertion Torquesupporting

confidence: 88%

Relation between bone density and primary implant stability

Farré-Pagés

Augé-Castro²,

Alaejos-Algarra³

et al. 2011

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Primary implant stability is desirable but not always achievable in soft bone quality, and it is not a prerequisite for osseointegration. However, there is evidence that implants with initial mobility exhibit a reduced survival rate . Similarly, lack of sufficient bone quantity has a negative impact on the survival rate .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival and complications: A 9‐ to 15‐year retrospective follow‐up of dental implant therapy

Adler

Buhlin

Jansson

2019

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long‐term follow‐up of oral implant therapy seldom report all biological and technical complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long‐term (9‐15 years) outcome after dental implant therapy, assess survival and complication rates. In addition, to identify the risk indicators of these complications at patient and implant levels. Patients (n = 376) treated with dental implants (n = 1095) between 1999 and 2005 at a specialist clinic in Stockholm, Sweden, were included. Longitudinal data were collected retrospectively from digital dental records. A subset of the included patient underwent a clinical examination at the 9‐15 years follow‐up (n = 163). Chi‐square tests, Kaplan‐Meier analyses and the general estimating equations (GEE) procedure were adopted for multilevel analyses. The cumulative implant survival rate up to 15 years was 82.6% (SE 4.1%). The prevalences of biological and technical complications at patient level were 52% and 32%, respectively. In total, 763 complications occurred, 65% of patients experienced at least one complications. Implant loss occurred significantly more frequently in subjects with a history of treated severe periodontitis Stage III‐IV (P = .008) and in cases when complications were registered during implant surgery (P = .010). Smoking was a significant risk indicator for peri‐implantitis (P = .006). The long‐term implant survival and complication rates at patient level were 83% and 79%, respectively. Implant loss was significantly more frequent for subjects with a history of treated severe periodontitis and if complication was registered during implant surgery. Smoking was a significant risk indicator for peri‐implantitis.

show abstract

“…Primary implant stability has been identified in several reports as a major determinant of implant integration . Achieving primary stability at implant insertion has always been at the core of the surgeon's concerns.…”

Section: Background and Purposementioning

confidence: 99%