Search

Introduction: There are several factors that greatly influence implant stability with implant design being a paramount factor; however, few studies investigate its impact. Aim: To investigate the implant stability in relation to two different implant designs, a cylindrical shaped single‐threaded design (CS/ST) and a tapered shaped double‐threaded design (TS/DT) using resonance frequency analysis over the first 8 weeks after implantation. Materials and Methods: Twenty‐eight implants were randomly allocated using computer‐generated random numbers into two groups and were placed as single tooth implant in the posterior arch in human jaw as specimens. iCAT™ CBCT scan (Hatfield, PA) was used to determine the bone density according to Misch's Bone classification. The osseotomy sites were prepared and implants were placed with guided surgical template by inexperienced surgeons which were prepared with the same implant planning software (3shape® implant studio). The implant stability was measured using the resonance frequency analysis Osstell® ISQ (Osstell AB, Sweden) on the implant level over the first 8 weeks at three different time intervals. A mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) value was recorded at each measurement time points. The first ISQ of each implant recorded at the time of implant placement were considered as baseline and were the so‐called primary stability. Results: All 28 dental implants were analyzed. A similar pattern of implant stability changes was observed in both implant designs. A significant decreased was found at the first 4 weeks after implantation (p < 0.05) before ascending to maximum cumulative stability by the eighth week (p < 0.05). Between the two groups, TS/DT group had a higher mean ISQ values than that of the CS/ST group at all three observation periods but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.69). Regarding different types of bone, TS/DT showed a significant difference in mean ISQ values in D4 bone. To date, all 28 implants are in function with no failure/and or complications. Conclusions: The difference in implant design did not significantly influence the implant stability. TS/DT shows superiority over CS/ST when placed in D4 bone and offer a significant advantage due to their positive bounce back of the ISQ values by the eighth week after implant installation. Clinical Trial Registration: TCTR20211020005. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: For successful osseointegration of an immediately loaded implant, the fundamental element is primary stability. Establishment of primary stability is influenced by combination of various factors one of them being implant geometry. Evaluation of primary stability and the factors influencing it is essential for successful treatment outcome. Methods: A total of 20 patients were divided into two groups. the implant placed in group I was with square thread designs (Ankylos® implant, DENTSPLY, Sirona) and group 2 was V shaped thread design MIS seven implant (MIS implant Ltd, Israel) in the pre molar-molar region. The stability was assessed with the aid of resonance frequency analysis (Osstell™, Integration Diagnostics, Sweden) at the time of implant placement, at three months and at six months. A repeated measure ANOVA and Bonferroni Pairwise comparison was used to compare the ISQ within each group. Results: There was a statistically significant difference in the stability at baseline to six months (p=0.006), from baseline to three months (p=0.006) and from three months to six months (p<0.001) in both the groups. Correlation could be found between implant geometry and stability observing improved stability in group 1 compared to group 2. Conclusion: The result from this material showed that the all implants were successfully osseointegrated with a mean ISQ of 80 and 71 at six months in group I and group II respectively. Implants with square threads showed a higher stability at baseline, at three months and at six months in comparison to the v shaped thread. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implant stability is relevant for the correct osseointegration and long-term success of dental implant treatments. The aim of this study has been to evaluate the influence of implant dimensions and position on primary and secondary stability of implants placed in maxilla using resonance frequency analysis. Thirty-one healthy patients who underwent dental implant placement were enrolled for the study. A total of 70 OsseoSpeed TX (Astra Tech Implant System—Dentsply Implants; Mölndal, Sweden) implants were placed. All implants have been placed according to a conventional two-stage surgical procedure according to the manufacturer instructions. Bone quality and implant stability quotient were recorded. Mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) at baseline (ISQ1) was statistically significant lower compared to 3-months post-implant placement (ISQ2) (p < 0.05). Initial implant stability was significantly higher with 4 mm diameter implants with respect to 3.5 mm. No differences were observed within maxilla regions. Implant length, diameter and maxillary regions have an influence on primary stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this clinical study was to measure the implant stability quotient using a method called resonance frequency analysis of dental implants during the healing period. Material and methods: A number of 27 patients received 50 internal hexagon implants (Biohorizons) either in the maxillary or in the mandibular arch. Implant stability was measured with an Osstell Mentor device (Osstel, AB, Sweden) using the resonance frequency analysis at the time of implant placement, 15, 30, 60 and 90 days post insertion. Results: The mean implant stability quotient for all implants placed was 67.06. The lowest value of the implant stability quotient was at 30 days post insertion measuring 62. Conclusions: In relation to the gender the implants placed in female patients showed a higher mean value of the implant stability quotient. In relation to the location within the dental arch the implants placed in the anterior areas had a higher implant stability quotient than the ones places in the posterior areas of the arch. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Numerous studies indicate implants placed immediately after extraction or with minimally invasive procedures have excellent long-term success and survival rates. There is general agreement that implants must be stable after implant placement. This study evaluated implant stability changes from the time of implant placement to second stage (prior to restoration). Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was determined for two commercially available units (Osstell, Osstell USA, Columbia, MD and Penguin, Penguin Integration Diagnostics, Sweden). The unit of measurement was the implant stability quotient (ISQ)., Materials and Methods: Prior to treatment patients were given medical and dental evaluations. Periapical and panogram radiographs were taken Computerized tomography images were taken for sites where adequate bone volume or quality were uncertain. Thirty patients were enrolled in this study (13 females, 17 males, mean age 73.4 years, (maximum age 90, minimum 47 year total of 38 implants were placed. One implant was lost. Computerized implant planning (Nobel Clinician) Nobel Biocar United States (Nobel Biocare, Yorba Linda, CA) was performed for all patients. Implants were placed utilizing a surgical guide. Using Resonance Frequency anal this study compared two RFA systems for determining implant stability (ISQ; Osstell and Penguin). Measurement pegs were screwed into the implants, and RFA measurements were taken at mesial, distal, lingual, and buccal implant surfaces. Stability measurements were taken at implant placement and at second stage. Clinical data and RFA measurements were recorded on data sheets. The average interval between first and second stages was 144.1 days (range 21.3) RESULTS: Average interval between implant placement and second stage was 141.1 days. One implant was lost prior to second stage. The results are based on 30 patients with 38 implants. At second stage, the RFA measures were slightly higher than first stage with a mean increase of 1.15, SE = 0.3, P-.067. The Penguin RFA values were marginally higher than Osstell (mean increase 1.10, SE = 0.64, P < .08)., Conclusions: RFA values between implant placement and second stage differed slightly between implant placement and second stage (P < 0.10). These differences were not clinically or statistically significant. At second stage, Penguin RFA values were slightly higher when compared with the Osstell device (P < 0.67). Bone quality appears to be an important factor when determining RFA readings. Type I bone had significantly higher readings when compared with other less dense bone types (P < .029) Resonance frequency evaluation data were similar for both instruments, indicating their reliability in determining implant stability. Neither instrument predicted implant failure. While subjective, Penguin was less cumbersome to utilize and the window revealing the readings was very easier to read. Further, the pegs are magnetized making insertion easy., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)