The evaluation of implant stability measured by resonance frequency analysis in different bone types

Sargolzaie, Naser; Samizade, Sarah; Arab, Hamid Reza; Ghanbari, Habibollah; Khodadadifard, Leila; Khajavi, Amin

doi:10.5125/jkaoms.2019.45.1.29

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Implant failure can be divided into early and late failures based on the time of failure. Early failure is failure to obtain osseointegration within several weeks or months after implant placement, mainly due to poor bone quality, necrosis of bone due to micro-trauma during surgery, bacterial infections around implants, lack of initial stability, immediate or early loading, smoking, or short-length implants [17, 18]. Delayed failure is destroyed osseointegration after functional loading and is thought to have a main cause of infection such as peri-implantitis or excessive overloading [19, 20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeated failure of implants at the same site: a retrospective clinical study

Kang

Kim

Choi

et al. 2019

Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Implants are becoming the first choice of rehabilitation for tooth loss. Even though they have a high success rate, failures still occur for many reasons. The objective of this study is to analyze the reasons for recurring failure at the same site and the results of re-implantation. Methods Thirteen patients (11 males and 2 females, mean age 60 ± 9.9 years) who experienced implant surgery failure at the same site (same tooth extraction area) two or more times in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, between 2004 and 2017 were selected. The medical records on a type, sites, diameter, and length of implants; time and estimated cause of failure; and radiographs were reviewed. Data were collected and analyzed retrospectively, and the current statuses were evaluated. Results A total of 14 implants experienced failure in the same site more than two times. Twelve implants were placed in the maxilla, while 2 implants were placed in the mandible. The maxillary molar area was the most common site of failure (57.1%), followed by the mandibular molar, anterior maxilla, and premolar areas (14.3% each). The first failure occurred most commonly after prosthetic treatment (35.7%) with an average period of failure of 3.8 months after loading. Ten cases were treated as immediate re-implantation, while the other 4 were delayed re-implantation after an average of 3.9 months. The second failure occurred most commonly after prosthetic treatment (42.9%), with an average of 31 months after loading; during the healing period (42.9%); and during the ongoing prosthetic period (14.3%). In 3 cases (21.4%), the treatment plan was altered to an implant bridge, while the other 11 cases underwent another implant placement procedure (78.6%). Finally, a total of 9 implants (64.3%) survived, with an average functioning period of 60 months. Conclusions Implants can fail repeatedly at the same site due to overloading, infection, and other unspecified reasons. The age and sex of the patient and the location of implant placement seem to be associated with recurring failure. Type of implant, bone augmentation, and bone materials used are less relevant. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40902-019-0209-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeated failure of implants at the same site: a retrospective clinical study

Kang

Kim

Choi

et al. 2019

Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 Other variables that may affect PS encompass implant dimensions (length and diameter), surface characteristics (moderately rough or smooth), and number of threads on the implant surface. 3,[7][8][9][10][11] With regard to implant diameter, studies [12][13][14][15] have shown that narrow-(<3.3 mm) and standard-(4.1 mm) diameter dental implants can remain functionally stable in smokers and medically compromised patient in a manner similar to systemically healthy nonsmokers. However, achievement of PS is often challenging when implants are placed in type-IV bone (soft bone), which usually comprises the posterior maxillae.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, tapered dental implants demonstrate a higher mechanical stability compared with cylindrical dental implants 6 . Other variables that may affect PS encompass implant dimensions (length and diameter), surface characteristics (moderately rough or smooth), and number of threads on the implant surface 3,7‐11 . With regard to implant diameter, studies 12‐15 have shown that narrow‐ (<3.3 mm) and standard‐ (4.1 mm) diameter dental implants can remain functionally stable in smokers and medically compromised patient in a manner similar to systemically healthy nonsmokers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary stability of narrow‐diameter dental implants with a multiple condensing thread design placed in bone with and without osteotomes: An in vitro study

Romanos

Lau

Delgado-Ruíz

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The authors hypothesized that there is no difference in the primary stability (PS) of multiple condensing thread design (MCTD) implants placed in simulated type-IV bone with and without using osteotomes. Purpose: This in vitro study assessed the PS of narrow-diameter dental implants with MCTD placed in simulated soft (type-IV) bone with and without using osteotomes. Materials and Methods: Sixty MCT-designed implants (diameter: 3.0 mm; length: 11.5 mm) were placed using 800 rpm drilling speed in cellular rigid polyurethane foam bone-blocks that simulated type-IV bone. Prior to placement, the implants were divided into three groups (20 implants per group) depending upon the protocol used for osteotomy preparation-Group-1: Conventional drilling (CD); Group-2: CD followed by osseous condensation using a chisel-shaped tapered osteotome with maximum diameter of 3 mm; and Group-3: CD followed by osseous condensation using a cylindrical osteotome with maximum diameter of 3 mm. Abutments were connected to all implants and PS was recorded using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and the periotest (PTV). Group comparisons were performed using analysis and Bonferroni post-hoc adjustment tests. Level of significance was set at P < .05. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the RFA values for the MCT-designed implants placed in groups 1, 2, and 3 (59.85 ± 0.72, 59.67 ± 0.76 and 59.42 ± 0.92, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in the PTV values for MCT-designed implants in groups 1, 2, and 3 (1.655 ± 0.82, 1.405 ± 0.57, and 1.078 ± 0.63, respectively). Conclusion: The MCTD implants with narrow diameters have a high PS in artificial soft bone in vitro. Due to the condensation effect of the thread design, there is no need for additional condensation of the peri-osteotomy bone in order to improve implant stability.

show abstract

“…For example, in a study by Sargolzaie et al, [23], there was no statistically significant relationship between bone density on implant stability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Influence of Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) Measurements for Successful Osseointegration of Dental Implants During the Healing Period and Its Impact on Implant Assessed by Osstell Mentor Device

Bafijari¹,

Benedetti

Stamatoski

et al. 2019

Open Access Maced J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM: This study aimed to investigate and assess primary and secondary dental implant stability during the osseointegration period. METHODS: A total of 77 implants were placed in 42 patients with 26 males and 16 females. The study was conducted by comparing the resonance frequency analysis (RFA) values of the implants inserted in the lower jaw. RFA was done immediately after implant insertion and after 12 weeks. Results were statistically evaluated using SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 7.1. Level of significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Significant differences were detected between the primary and secondary stability values, respectively. Maximum RFA value of 88 and the minimum value of 52 were observed. Stability values increased during the following three months, and all implants were successfully integrated without complication. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate and suggest that there is a strong linear correlation between implant stability and ISQ values that can be directly estimated by the RFA, especially in the posterior edentulous mandible. Osstell implant device could represent a useful tool which can be used to identify the risk for implant failure.

show abstract

The evaluation of implant stability measured by resonance frequency analysis in different bone types

Cited by 21 publications

References 18 publications

Repeated failure of implants at the same site: a retrospective clinical study

Repeated failure of implants at the same site: a retrospective clinical study

Primary stability of narrow‐diameter dental implants with a multiple condensing thread design placed in bone with and without osteotomes: An in vitro study

Influence of Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) Measurements for Successful Osseointegration of Dental Implants During the Healing Period and Its Impact on Implant Assessed by Osstell Mentor Device

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About