Comparison of nonself‐tapping tapered implant and self‐tapping hybrid implant in terms of implant stability at initial and second fixation: A prospective randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Background: Various features are provided in dental implants to improve initial fixation. Purpose: To compare the implant stability of the nonself-tapping tapered implant and self-tapping hybrid implant over a 3-month healing period. Materials and methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted. Patients were randomly divided into tapered and self-tapping groups. Patients in the tapered group received NobelReplace Tapered (Nobel Biocare, Sweden) implants, while those in the self-tapping group received NobelSpeedy (Nobel Biocare, Sweden) implants. Implant stability was measured by resonance frequency analysis at surgery and 3 months following implant insertion. Data were analyzed using an independent t-test. Results: Forty-three patients (tapered group: 21, self-tapping group: 22) received a total of 88 implants. Initial stability in the tapered group was significantly higher (mean: 60.14, SD: 12.40) than that in the self-tapping group (mean: 54.72, SD: 7.92). Implant stability significantly increased 3 months after implantation in the tapered group (mean: 66.61, SD: 9.00) and self-tapping group (mean: 64.01, SD: 5.78). No significant intergroup difference in implant stability was noted 3 months after surgery. Conclusions: The tapered shape affected initial fixation more than the self-tapping function. However, during the second fixation, both implants showed good stability, and the difference disappeared. 1 | INTRODUCTION Dental implants are widely used to treat lost teeth because of their functional and esthetic advantages. These implants have a 10-year survival rate of 90% or more. 1,2 Their effectiveness in the oral cavity is based on the osseointegration between titanium and bone. Osseointegration refers to the development of a direct structural and functional connection between living bone and the surface of a loadbearing implant without the interposition of soft tissue. 3 Adequate initial fixation of the implant is essential to prevent subsequent bone micromovement that could disturb the process of osseointegration. 4 Micromovement of 100 to 200 μm or more after implant placement impedes the acquisition of osseointegration between the implant body and bone. 5 Initial fixation is achieved by mechanical engagement of the bone and the implant, and the mechanical force applied is attenuated by remodeling of the bone. During bone remodeling, surfaces that provide secondary stability develop on the surface of the implant body and on the bone. Failure to achieve osseointegration results in failure of implant treatment. Therefore, many implant body improvements have been attempted to ensure

Bone Level Tapered Implants in the Maxillary Esthetic Zone: A 1-Year Prospective Case Series in Healed Sites

“…Therefore, implant stability was analyzed by measuring the ISQ. ISQ was not measured by Levine et al 17 or Pariente et al 18 Torroella-Saura et al 33 and Moroi et al 34 compared ISQ values of tapered implants with cylindrical implants. Although different implant brands were used, mainly in the molar and mandibular region, they noted mean ISQ values at implant placement of 72.9 ± 2.5 33 and 60.2 ± 12.4 34 for the tapered implants, which were higher compared with cylindrical implants.…”

“…Although different implant brands were used, mainly in the molar and mandibular region, they noted mean ISQ values at implant placement of 72.9 ± 2.5 33 and 60.2 ± 12.4 34 for the tapered implants, which were higher compared with cylindrical implants. The ISQ of the present study at implant placement was 73 (68;76 interquartile range), indicating high implant stability, 35 and is comparable to the values measured with other implant brands and in the posterior mandibular region by Torroella-Saura et al 33 and Moroi et al 34 In addition to knowing this, Pariente et al 18 did describe the mean insertion torque value as 34 ± 5.3 Ncm. This can be classified as good primary stability, 36 even though the majority of the implants were placed in poor type III or IV bone.…”

Alveolar ridge preservation in defect sockets in the maxillary aesthetic zone followed by single-tooth bone level tapered implants with immediate provisionalization: a 1-year prospective case series

“…The implant stability quotient was measured in neither the study of Levine et al [17] nor the study of Pariente et al [18]. Moroi et al [28] studied implant stability of tapered implants versus cylindrical implants, but these implants were from a different brand and mostly placed in the posterior region. They found a mean ISQ value of 60.2 ± 12.41 at implant placement and 66.6 ± 9.00 at definitive crown placement for the tapered implants.…”

Effect of Hafnium Coating on Osseointegration of Titanium Implants: A Split Mouth Animal Study

“…However, the implant screws selected were a self-threading type with drill driver provided by the manufacturer of the implant screws. Hence, primary stability could not have been affected by the dexterity of the implant placement [49][50][51][52].…”