Primary implant stability in the atrophic sinus floor of human cadaver maxillae: impact of residual ridge height, bone density, and implant diameter

Pommer, Bernhard; Hof, M.A. van ‘t; Fädler, Andrea; Gahleitner, André; Watzek, Georg; Watzak, Georg

doi:10.1111/clr.12071

Cited by 48 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The impact of implant diameter and length on primary stability was not evident in this study, as ITVs did not significantly differ between various implant diameters and lengths in all three bone qualities taken jointly or in D4 bone considered separately. Similar findings were reported in a human cadaver maxilla model evaluating the primary stability of variable‐thread tapered implants of different diameters . The lack of statistically significant differences in ITVs between different implant lengths is in line with the clinical findings of Gómez‐Polo et al .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Insertion Torque of Variable‐Thread Tapered Implants in the Posterior Maxilla: A Clinical Study

Abi-Aad

Daher

Baba

et al. 2018

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Insertion Torque of Variable‐Thread Tapered Implants in the Posterior Maxilla: A Clinical Study

Abi-Aad

Daher

Baba

et al. 2018

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, for more objective evaluation, computed tomography Hounsfield unit (HU) can be utilized, but there is a problem on routinely applying this in clinical setting 27. In several studies on the relationship between bone quality and implant stability, it has been stated that bone quality is the most important factor affecting on primary stability of the implant 282930. Isoda et al reported that bone quality evaluation by using CBCT provides a very useful information for predicting implant primary stability 31.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective randomized clinical trial of hydrophilic tapered implant placement at maxillary posterior area: 6 weeks and 12 weeks loading

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEEarly loading of implant can be determined by excellent primary stability and characteristic of implant surface. The implant system with recently improved surface can have load application 4-6 weeks after installing in maxilla and mandible. This study evaluated the effect of healing period to the stability of hydrophilic tapered-type implant at maxillary posterior area.MATERIALS AND METHODSThis study included 30 patients treated by hydrophilic tapered-type implants (total 41 implants at maxilla) and classified by two groups depending on healing period. Group 1 (11 patients, 15 implants) was a control group and the healing period was 12 weeks, and Group 2 (19 patients, 26 implants) was test group and the healing period was 6 weeks. Immediately after implant placement, at the first impression taking, implant stability was measured using Osstell Mentor. The patients also took periapical radiographs after restoration delivery, 12 months after restoration and final followup period. The marginal bone loss around the implants was measured using the periapical radiographs.RESULTSAll implants were survived and success rate was 97.56%. The marginal bone loss was less than 1mm after 1 year postoperatively except the one implant. The stabilities of the implants were not correlated with age, healing period until loading, insertion torque (IT), the diameter of fixture and the location of implant. Only the quality of bone in group 2 (6 week) was correlated with the stability of implant.CONCLUSIONHealing period of 6 weeks can make the similar clinical prognosis of implants to that of healing period of 12 weeks if bone quality is carefully considered in case of early loading.

show abstract

“…Reported success rates for oral implants are high; however, there is a lack of longitudinal data with at least 5 years of follow-up [2]. It has been suggested that several risk factors may impair long-term implant survival including jaw location (anterior vs. posterior region and maxilla vs. mandible) [3], implant dimensions (length, diameter, and implant design) [4], simultaneous or staged bone augmentation procedures [5], local bone density at the implant site [6], and patient-related risk factors such as age, smoking, history of periodontal disease, diabetes mellitus, and osteoporosis [7,8]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term implant success at the Academy for Oral Implantology: 8-year follow-up and risk factor analysis

Busenlechner

Fürhauser

Haas

et al. 2014

J Periodontal Implant Sci

Self Cite

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeRehabilitation of the incomplete dentition by means of osseointegrated dental implants represents a highly predictable and widespread therapy; however, little is known about potential risk factors that may impair long-term implant success.MethodsFrom 2004 to 2012, a total of 13,147 implants were placed in 4,316 patients at the Academy for Oral Implantology in Vienna. The survival rates after 8 years of follow-up were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the impact of patient- and implant-related risk factors was assessed.ResultsOverall implant survival was 97% and was not associated with implant length (P=0.930), implant diameter (P=0.704), jaw location (P=0.545), implant position (P=0.450), local bone quality (P=0.398), previous bone augmentation surgery (P=0.617), or patient-related factors including osteoporosis (P=0.661), age (P=0.575), or diabetes mellitus (P=0.928). However, smoking increased the risk of implant failure by 3 folds (P<0.001) and a positive history of periodontal disease doubled the failure risk (P=0.001).ConclusionsSumming up the long-term results of well over 10,000 implants at the Academy for Oral Implantology in Vienna it can be concluded that there is only a limited number of patients that do not qualify for implant therapy and may thus not benefit from improved quality of life associated with fixed implant-retained prostheses.Graphical Abstract

show abstract

Primary implant stability in the atrophic sinus floor of human cadaver maxillae: impact of residual ridge height, bone density, and implant diameter

Cited by 48 publications

References 39 publications

Insertion Torque of Variable‐Thread Tapered Implants in the Posterior Maxilla: A Clinical Study

Insertion Torque of Variable‐Thread Tapered Implants in the Posterior Maxilla: A Clinical Study

Prospective randomized clinical trial of hydrophilic tapered implant placement at maxillary posterior area: 6 weeks and 12 weeks loading

Long-term implant success at the Academy for Oral Implantology: 8-year follow-up and risk factor analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About