Evaluation of Primary Stability of Self‐Tapping and Non‐Self‐Tapping Dental Implants. A 12‐Week Clinical Study

Abstract

The outcomes of the present study indicate that bone drilling is not an effective technique for improving implant stability and, following this technique, the use of self-tapping implants is highly recommended. Implant stability optimization in the soft bone can be achieved by lateral bone-condensing technique, regardless of implant macro-design.

Does the Implant Surgical Technique Affect the Primary and/or Secondary Stability of Dental Implants? A Systematic Review

“…Another clinical observational study [50] compared osteotome technique with conventional technique for implant placement. A total of 102 implants were placed in posterior segment of maxilla, 51 self-tapping (4 mm in width and 10 mm in length) implants, and 51 non-self-tapping (4.1 mm in width and 10 mm in length).…”

“…None of the articles was excluded from the systematic review after quality assessment, except for one article on studies [50, 55] conducted by the same author and having some overlapping patients. In this case, after ranking the studies, the one with the highest score [50] was included in the systematic review, the other [55] was excluded.…”

“…In this case, after ranking the studies, the one with the highest score [50] was included in the systematic review, the other [55] was excluded. A priori calculation for the sample size was undertaken in only two studies [49, 53].…”

“…A priori calculation for the sample size was undertaken in only two studies [49, 53]. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the sample selection were clearly defined in only five studies [11, 32, 49, 50, 53]. In addition, blinding of outcome assessors were mentioned by the authors in only three of the included studies [11, 50, 53].…”

“…Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the sample selection were clearly defined in only five studies [11, 32, 49, 50, 53]. In addition, blinding of outcome assessors were mentioned by the authors in only three of the included studies [11, 50, 53]. Finally, confounders were not considered for analysis in three studies [32, 49, 52].…”