Multivariate study of factors influencing primary dental implant stability

Mesa, Francisco; Muñoz, Ricardo; Noguerol, Blas; Luna, Juan de Dios; Galindo, Pablo; O’Valle, Francisco

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01450.x

Cited by 66 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Insufficient vertical bone height and low bone mineral density are common reasons for failure implantation (Tinsley et al, 1999;Mesa et al, 2008). In this study, the type 2 cluster of sites (P3D6, P6D6, P6D9) had greater bone height, followed by types 1 and 3.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 50%

Applied Anatomic Site Study of Palatal Anchorage Implants Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The purpose of this study was to conduct quantitative research on bone height and bone mineral density of palatal implant sites for implantation, and to provide reference sites for safe and stable palatal implants.Methodology Three-dimensional reformatting images were reconstructed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in 34 patients, aged 18 to 35 years, using EZ Implant software. Bone height was measured at 20 sites of interest on the palate. Bone mineral density was measured at the 10 sites with the highest implantation rate, classified using K-mean cluster analysis based on bone height and bone mineral density.Results According to the cluster analysis, 10 sites were classified into three clusters. Significant differences in bone height and bone mineral density were detected between these three clusters (P<0.05). The greatest bone height was obtained in cluster 2, followed by cluster 1 and cluster 3.The highest bone mineral density was found in cluster 3, followed by cluster 1 and cluster 2.Conclusion CBCT plays an important role in pre-surgical treatment planning. CBCT is helpful in identifying safe and stable implantation sites for palatal anchorage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 50%

Applied Anatomic Site Study of Palatal Anchorage Implants Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Primary stability of dental implants is defined as the capacity of the implant to withstand loading in axial, lateral, and rotational directions (Mesa et al 2008). It is the most important clinical goal to be achieved at the time of implant placement.…”

Section: Primary Implant Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of NobelActive^TM dental implants

Yeung

Zee

et al. 2011

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To conduct a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the short‐term clinical and radiographic efficacy of the NobelActive™ system and to evaluate the relative importance of achieving primary stability at placement. Materials and methods A total of 32 subjects were recruited and, using a split‐mouth design, the NobelActiveTM implant was compared with a contralaterally matched Brånemark implant. Both implants were placed in a single surgical procedure into healed sites using a one‐stage protocol and reviewed at monthly intervals. NobelActiveTM implants were functionally loaded with provisional restorations at 1 month and all implants were restored with final crowns 3 months post‐implant placement. The implant was assessed using peak insertion torque values, resonance frequency analysis (RFA), clinical parameters, digital subtraction radiography, and cone beam computed tomography. Results The insertion torque was significantly greater for the NobelActiveTM implant group (P = 0.02), although no observable difference in RFA values were found. Preliminary results of 6 months follow‐up suggest comparable clinical and radiographic healing responses between the test and control implants. Within the limits of the sample population, the survival rates were lower with the test implants, although this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions The NobelActiveTM implant system requires higher insertion torques and can also achieve greater primary stability compared with a control implant system. Short‐term survival and marginal bone levels of NobelActiveTM and control implants are comparable, although the NobelActiveTM implant system appeared to be more technique‐sensitive.

show abstract

“…Now in implant dentistry, advanced treatment protocols such as early or immediate loading are frequently used to reduce treatment time but this poses new demands on both the primary and secondary implant stability. Implant stability is defined as the capacity of the implant to withstand loading in axial, lateral, and rotational directions [4]. Primary stability is mainly dependent on the mechanical characteristics of the original bone like its local quality and quantity, the type of implant used including its geometry, diameter, length & surface characteristics, and the surgical techniques employed [5,6].Secondary implant stability represents enhancement of the stability as a result of peri-implant bone formation through gradual bone remodeling and osteoconduction, with the possibility of new bone formation at the implant-bone interface and influenced by the implant surface characteristics [7,8].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Platelet-Rich-Plasma (PRP) and Implant Surface Topography on Implant Stability and Bone

Kundu

Rathee

2014

JCDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of Platelet-Rich-Plasma (PRP) and different implant surface topography on implant stability and bone levels around immediately loaded dental implants. Materials and Methods:Dental implants were placed in subjects divided into two groups and four subgroups on basis of implant treatment with PRP and implant surface topography used. A total of 30 implants were placed, 15 in each group. For PRP group, implants were placed after surface treatment with PRP. Temporization was done within two weeks and final prosthesis was given after three months. Implant stability was measured with Periotest at baseline, one month and three months. Bone height was measured on mesial & distal side on standardized IOPA x-rays.Results: A statistically significant difference was noticed in implant stability with PRP at baseline. The effect of PRP on bone height changes was not statistically significant. A synergistic effect of PRP and square thread-form was observed on improved implant stability and bone levels; however, no such effect is seen with PRP and reverse buttress thread-form. Conclusion:Within the limitation of this study, enhancement on implant stability and bone healing was observed with PRP treated implant surfaces, and with use of implant with square thread-form. InTROduCTIOnModern dentistry aims to restore the comfort and health of the stomatognathic system. Dental implants have emerged as a promising option for this purpose. Osseointegration forms the basis of implant success. Studies have been conducted to establish the criteria for success and failure of osseointegration and factors affecting osseointegration [1,2]. Traditionally, an unloaded healing period was considered essential for the achievement of osseointegration of dental implants [3]. Now in implant dentistry, advanced treatment protocols such as early or immediate loading are frequently used to reduce treatment time but this poses new demands on both the primary and secondary implant stability. Implant stability is defined as the capacity of the implant to withstand loading in axial, lateral, and rotational directions [4]. Primary stability is mainly dependent on the mechanical characteristics of the original bone like its local quality and quantity, the type of implant used including its geometry, diameter, length & surface characteristics, and the surgical techniques employed [5,6].Secondary implant stability represents enhancement of the stability as a result of peri-implant bone formation through gradual bone remodeling and osteoconduction, with the possibility of new bone formation at the implant-bone interface and influenced by the implant surface characteristics [7,8]. Contemporary knowledge indicates that the degree of micromotion at the bone-implant interface during initial healing is of utmost importance in achieving good secondary stability [9][10][11].Several measures have been proposed to improve and accelerate osseous healing of endosseous implants. Platelet-Rich-Plasma (PRP) has been suggested to enhance ...

show abstract

Multivariate study of factors influencing primary dental implant stability

Cited by 66 publications

References 28 publications

Applied Anatomic Site Study of Palatal Anchorage Implants Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Applied Anatomic Site Study of Palatal Anchorage Implants Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of NobelActive^TM dental implants

Effect of Platelet-Rich-Plasma (PRP) and Implant Surface Topography on Implant Stability and Bone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Multivariate study of factors influencing primary dental implant stability

Cited by 66 publications

References 28 publications

Applied Anatomic Site Study of Palatal Anchorage Implants Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Applied Anatomic Site Study of Palatal Anchorage Implants Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of NobelActiveTM dental implants

Effect of Platelet-Rich-Plasma (PRP) and Implant Surface Topography on Implant Stability and Bone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of NobelActive^TM dental implants