Validation of value of actual micromotion as a direct measure of implant micromobility after healing (secondary implant stability). An <i>in vivo</i> histologic and biomechanical study

Trisi, Paolo; Berardini, Marco; Falco, Alessandra; Vulpiani, Michele Podaliri

doi:10.1111/clr.12756

Cited by 38 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other clinical studies in which a non-functional loading with no occlusal contacts was used, similar outcomes were also reported. 32,33 In this study, we used In recent studies, it was reported that RFA was a reliable tool for assessment of implant stability and ISQ value significantly correlated with other implant stability parameters such as insertion torque value, 11,19 bone density, 11,21 actual micro-motion value, 34 and fractal analysis. 35,36 However, controversial results were also reported about the reliability of ISQ for the assessment of implant stability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of different loading protocols on the secondary stability and peri‐implant bone density of the single implants in the posterior maxilla

Akoğlan

Tatlı

Kurtoğlu

et al. 2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of different loading protocols on the secondary stability and peri‐implant bone density of the single implants in the posterior maxilla

Akoğlan

Tatlı

Kurtoğlu

et al. 2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[38] The significant decrease in retention of the overdentures in all patients after 12 months of clinical use, dictated replacement of the wearied pink nylon inserts with new ones utilizing the insertion tool. [39] The significant increase in the mean bone height measurements in both groups, indicating increased crestal bone resorption in the first six months compared to those measurements from six to twelve months, which might be explained by the continuous remodeling process of bone surrounding the implant resulting in bone resorption, followed by bone deposition. [40].…”

Section: Discussion Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Impact of Implant Number on Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Implant-Supported Maxillary Overdenture With Locator Attachments: 2-Years Outcomes

Mostafa

Ghaffar

Mahmoud

2018

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statement of problem:Patient perspectives on the treatment options for maxillary edentulism, which debate include fixed or removable implant-supported prostheses, may help eliminate current uncertainty as to the best choice of treatment plan.Purpose: This study intended to evaluate the impact of implant number placed in fully edentulous maxilla on the clinical as well as the radiographic outcomes of implant-supported maxillary overdentures with locator attachments over two years of investigation.

show abstract

“…In the laboratory setting, macromotion may lead to implant failure, while micromotion is beneficial to bone‐implant integration. Implant micromotion is equally important for stable OI, whereby micromotions up to 30 µm enhance OI, and micromotions greater than 150 µm inhibit it …”

Section: Current Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthopaedic osseointegration: Implantology and future directions

Overmann

Aparicio

Richards

et al. 2020

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osseointegration (OI) is the direct anchorage of a metal implant into bone, allowing for the connection of an external prosthesis to the skeleton. Osseointegration was first discovered in the 1960s based on the microscopic analysis of titanium implant placed into host bone. New bone was observed to attach directly to the metal surface. Following clinical investigations into dentistry applications, OI was adapted to treat extremity amputations. These bone anchored implants, which penetrate the skin and soft tissues, eliminate many of the challenges of conventional prosthetic sockets, such as poor fit and suspension, skin breakdown, and pain. Osseointegrated implants show promise to improve prosthesis use, pain, and function for amputees. The successful process of transcutaneous metal integration into host bone requires three synergistic systems: the host bone, the metal implant, and the skin‐implant interface. All three systems must be optimized for successful incorporation and longevity of the implant. Osseointegration begins during surgical implantation of the metal components through a complex interplay of cellular mechanisms. While implants can vary in design—including the original screw, press fit implants, and compressive osseointegration—they face common challenges to successful integration and maintenance of fixation within the host bone. Overcoming these challenges requires the understanding of the complex interactions between each element of OI. This review outlines (a) the basic components of OI, (b) the science behind both the bone‐implant and the skin‐implant interfaces, (c) the current challenges of OI, and (d) future opportunities within the field.

show abstract

Validation of value of actual micromotion as a direct measure of implant micromobility after healing (secondary implant stability). An in vivo histologic and biomechanical study

Cited by 38 publications

References 39 publications

Effects of different loading protocols on the secondary stability and peri‐implant bone density of the single implants in the posterior maxilla

Effects of different loading protocols on the secondary stability and peri‐implant bone density of the single implants in the posterior maxilla

The Impact of Implant Number on Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Implant-Supported Maxillary Overdenture With Locator Attachments: 2-Years Outcomes

Orthopaedic osseointegration: Implantology and future directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About