Does Implant Design Affect Implant Primary Stability? A Resonance Frequency Analysis–Based Randomized Split-Mouth Clinical Trial

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess implant stability in relation to implant design (conical vs. semiconical and wide-pitch vs narrow-pitch) using resonance frequency analysis. Twenty patients with bilateral edentulous maxillary premolar region were selected. In one hemiarch, conical implants with wide pitch (group 1) were installed; in the other hemiarch, semiconical implants with narrow pitch were installed (group 2). The implant allocation was randomized. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured by resonance frequency analysis immediately following implant placement to assess primary stability (time 1) and at 90 days after placement (time 2). In group 1, the mean and standard deviation ISQ for time 1 was 65.8 ± 6.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 55 to 80), and for time 2, it was 68.0 ± 5.52 (95% CI, 57 to 77). In group 2, the mean and standard deviation ISQ was 63.6 ± 5.95 (95% CI, 52 to 78) for time 1 and 67.0 ± 5.71 (95% CI, 58 to 78) for time 2. The statistical analysis demonstrated significant difference in the ISQ values between groups at time 1 (P = .007) and no statistical difference at time 2 (P = .54). The greater primary stability of conical implants with wide pitch compared with semiconical implants with narrow pitch might suggest a preference for the former in case of the adoption of immediate or early loading protocols.

The influence of three different apical implant designs at stability and osseointegration process: experimental study in rabbits

“…Therefore, an implant system provides a range of design, probably designed to increase initial stability and facilitate osseointegration, with the same surface on all models; thus, only the variation of design was evaluated (Gehrke et al. ).…”

“…There are two indicators of osseointegration: the contact ratio between bone and implant, which measures the degree of contact between bone and implant in the tissue specimen, and the bone surface area, which measures the amount of new bone formation quantitatively within the conchoids of the implant. These methods have been used to measure, compare and analyze the responses of the surrounding bone and the amount of new bone that was stimulated by various types of implant, surgical method, site of placement, healing period and conditions to produce extensive data that are clinically applicable (da Silva Neto et al ; Gehrke ). In this study, the contact ratio between the bone and implant was used.…”

“… ; Gehrke et al. ) and irrigation mode (or absence of irrigation). For most of the research concerning drills and drilling technique variations, the most commonly measured outcome concerns the heat generated at these sites as a function of different variables always referenced by a suitable control group (Calvo‐Guirado et al.…”

“… ; Gehrke et al. ). The features of the implant system influence the osseointegration mode of implants (Novaes et al.…”

Effects of different loading protocols on the secondary stability and peri‐implant bone density of the single implants in the posterior maxilla

“…One of the elements produces a magnetic vibration consisting of sinusoidal signal in the range of 15‐25 kHz, and the other element analyzes the response of the transducer to the vibration . The peak amplitude of the response is converted into a parameter called the “implant stability quotient” (ISQ) ranging from 0 (indicating a totally mobile implant) to 100 (indicating a perfectly stable bone‐implant interface) . Thus, the RFA quantitatively reflects the micro‐motion of the implant in the bone.…”