The Effect of Implant Shape and Screw Pitch on Microdamage in Mandibular Bone

Abstract

Taper-cylindrical implants with 0.8 mm screw pitch caused the least microdamage to the bone in comparison with the other five types of implants during placement of implants.

Comparison between tapered and cylindrical implants in the posterior regions of the mandible: A prospective, randomized, split‐mouth clinical trial focusing on implant stability changes during early healing

“…To optimize osseointegration and thereby reduce the treatment time, multiple factors must be considered, including bone density, bone quality, surgical technique, and the geometry of the implant body . The relationship between these factors determines the initial implant stability, which is defined as the absence of movement after their surgical insertion . The success rate of for implants depends on the primary stability achieved, because this mechanical stability is a prerequisite for successful osseointegration and bone cell differentiation …”

“…1,2 The relationship between these factors determines the initial implant stability, which is defined as the absence of movement after their surgical insertion. [2][3][4][5] The success rate of for implants depends on the primary stability achieved, 1,6,7 because this mechanical stability is a prerequisite for successful osseointegration and bone cell differentiation. 8 Implant macro-and microstructures have been modified over the years to improve both the primary and the secondary stability by maximizing the implant surface area in contact with the surrounding bone and better engagement of the marginal cortical and lateral bone.…”

Tapered Implants in Dentistry

“…The most common approach to this objective is through modification of implant design parameters. Implant endurance and success have been reported in various publications to be influenced by aspects such as implant surface, primary stability, thread configuration, implant design, and the type of bone (Bahat and Sullivan 2010a, 2001b; Romanos et al 2014; Xu et al 2015).…”

Influence of Different Implant Geometry in Clinical Longevity and Maintenance of Marginal Bone: A Systematic Review

“…To facilitate obtaining adequate stability and adequate stress distribution, a large number of implant geometries were designed for different bone types and clinical situations . At present, the most common implant geometries can be classified as cylindrical, tapered, and hybrid (cylindrical body with tapered geometry in the implant apex region).…”

“…[5][6][7] To facilitate obtaining adequate stability and adequate stress distribution, a large number of implant geometries were designed for different bone types and clinical situations. 8,9 At present, the most common implant geometries can be classi-fied as cylindrical, tapered, and hybrid (cylindrical body with tapered geometry in the implant apex region). Also, it has been argued that alterations in microdesign, which can be made by mechanical and chemical additive or subtractive processes (e.g., ion deposition or acid-etching) or by biological coating (e.g., growth factors), can affect primary stability, bone/implant contact, and stress distribution to the surrounding tissues.…”