Influence of implant macro-designs on primary and secondary implant stability

Authors

  • Mauricio Toro Universidad de Chile. Facultad de Odontología. Departamento de prótesis dental. Santiago de Chile, Chile. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5333-3640
  • Javier Leitao Universidad de Chile. Facultad de Odontología. Departamento de prótesis dental. Santiago de Chile, Chile. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8791-239X
  • Gloria Sánchez Universidad de Chile. Facultad de Odontología. Departamento de prótesis dental. Santiago de Chile, Chile. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6824-4261
  • Tomás Yoma Universidad de Chile. Facultad de Odontología. Departamento de prótesis dental. Santiago de Chile, Chile. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4617-0040
  • Eduardo Fernández Universidad de Chile. Facultad de Odontología. Departamento de Odontología Restauradora. Santiago de Chile, Chile. Universidad Autónoma de Chile. Instituto de Ciencias Biomédicas. Santiago de Chile, Chile. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2616-1510
  • Alain Manuel Chaple Gil Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de La Habana. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas “Victoria de Girón”. La Habana, Cuba. Universidad Autónoma de Chile. Facultad de Ciencias Biomédicas. Temuco, Chile. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8571-4429

Keywords:

dental implants, bone, jaw, maxilla.

Abstract

Aim: to analyze the influence of the implant macro design in the primary and secondary stability by means of analysis of resonance frequency and force of insertion. 
Methods: 38 Screw Type and Tapered Type implants were placed in 18 patients in the Bucomaxillofacial Implantology program of the University of Chile during 2006 and 2007 in type II or III bone jaws according to Leckholm and Zarb. Implant stability, implant stability coefficient (ISQ), was measured through Ostell® mentor at the time of installation (ISQ1) and then at connection (ISQ2) and the Insertion Torque through the Osseoset® machine: 17 Screw Type implants with an approximate average contact area of 237mm2 (3.75 / 15mm; 3.75 / 13mm) and 17 Tapered Type implants with an approximate average contact area of 226mm2 (4.3 / 13mm; 4.3 / 16mm).
Results: The averages of ISQ1 and ISQ2 and Insertion Torque respectively for implants with an approximate contact area of 237mm2 were 71.3 ISQ1, 66.6 ISQ2 and 44.52Ncm; for 226mm2 implants it was 75 ISQ1, 72.5 ISQ2 and 48.82Ncm.
Conclusion: Implants with an average contact area of approximately 226mm2 (Tapered Type) present significantly higher primary and secondary stability than those with an average contact area of approximately 237mm2 (Screw Type). (Average ISQ1: p = 0.0473; Insertion Torque: p = 0.0031 and Average ISQ2: p = 0.0039).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Naroa Lozano-Carrascal, Oscar Salomó-Coll, Marta Gilabert-Cerd? , Nuria Farré-Pagés, Jordi Gargallo-Albiol, Federico Hernández-Alfaro. Effect of implant macro-design on primary stability: A prospective clinical study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Mar; 21(2):e214-21. doi: 10.4317/medoral.21024

2. Andreas Vollmer, Babak Saravi, Gernot Lang, Nicolai Adolphs, Derek Hazard, Verena Giers, Peter Stoll. Factors Influencing Primary and Secondary Implant Stability—A Retrospective Cohort Study with 582 Implants in 272 Patients. Appl. Sci. 2020; 10(22):80-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/app10228084

3. Kim, H. M., Cho, J., & Ryu, J. (2019). Evaluation of implant stability using different implant drilling sequences. J Dent Sci. 2019 Jun; 14(2): 152-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2019.03.006

4. Sargolzaie N, Samizade S, Arab H, Ghanbari H, Khodadadifard L, Khajavi A. The evaluation of implant stability measured by resonance frequency analysis in different bone types. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Feb; 45(1):29-33. doi: 10.5125/jkaoms.2019.45.1.29

5. Miri R, Shirzadeh A, Kermani H, Khajavi A. Relationship and changes of primary and secondary stability in dental implants: A review. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev. 2017; 2017:1-6. doi: 10.15713/ins.ijcdmr.112

6. Valderrama P, Oates TW, Jones AA, Simpson J, Schoolfield J, Cochran DL. Evaluation of Two Different Resonance Frequency Devices to Detect Implant Stability: A Clinical Trial. J Periodontol. 2007 Feb;78(2):262-72. doi: 10.1902/jop.2007.060143

7. Baftijari D, Benedetti A, Kirkov A, Iliev A, Stamatoski A, Baftijari F, Deliverska EG, Gjorgievska E. Assessment of Primary and Secondary Implant Stability by Resonance Frequency Analysis in Anterior and Posterior Segments of Maxillary Edentulous Ridges. J of IMAB. 2018 Apr-Jun;24 (2):2058-64. DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2018242.2058

8. Kastala VH, Ramoji Rao MV. Comparative evaluation of implant stability in two different implant systems at baseline and 3–4 months intervals using RFA device (OSSTELL ISQ). Indian J Dent Res. Sep-Oct 2019;30(5):678-86. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_446_17.

9. Dayan C, Geckili O, Bural C. The influence of implant shape on primary stability of implants with a thread cutting and forming design: an ex vivo study. J Oral Implantol. 2019 Jun;45(3):181-5. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-18-00158

10. O'Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Influence of implant taper on the primary and secondary stability of osseointegrated titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Aug;15(4):474-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01041.x.

11. O'Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Jagger D, Meredith N. A comparison of two methods of enhancing implant primary stability. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004;6(1):48-57. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00027.x.

12. O'Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Measurements comparing the initial stability of five designs of dental implants: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000;2(2):85-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00110.x.

13. Toro M, Leitao J, Sánchez G, Díaz L, Chaple Gil AM, Fernández E. Simplified method to quantify the osseointegration area of dental implants. Rev Cubana Invest Bioméd. [Internet] 2020 [Cited: 4/05/2021];39(3):e651. Available in: http://www.revibiomedica.sld.cu/index.php/ibi/article/view/651

14. Sakoh J, Wahlmann U, Stender E, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W. Primary Stability of a Conical Implant and a Hybrid, Cylindric Screw-Type Implant In Vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. [Internet] 2006 [Cited: 4/05/2021];21(4):560–6. Available in: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16955606/

15. Menicucci G, Pachie E, Lorenzetti M, Migliaretti G, Carossa S. Comparison of primary stability of straight-walled and tapered implants using an insertion torque device. Int J Prosthodont. [Internet] Sep-Oct 2012[Cited: 4/05/2021];25(5):465-71 Available in: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22930768/

16. Rokn A, Ghahroudi AR, Mesgarzadeh A, Miremadi A, Yaghoobi S. Evaluation of stability changes in tapered and parallel wall implants: a human clinical trial. J Dent (Tehran). [Internet] 2011 Autumn[Cited: 4/05/2021];8(4):186-200. Available in: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/22509458/

17. Barikani H, Rashtak S, Akbari S, Fard MK, Rokn A. The effect of shape, length and diameter of implants on primary stability based on resonance frequency analysis. Dent Res J (Isfahan). [Internet] 2014 Jan[Cited: 4/05/2021];11(1):87-91. Available in: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24688566/

18. Romanos GE, Basha-Hijazi A, Gupta B, Ren YF, Malmstrom H. Role of clinician’s experience and implant design on implant stability. An ex vivo study in artificial soft bones. Clin Implant Dent Rela Res. 2014 Apr;16(2):166-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00470.x.

Downloads

Published

2023-11-11

How to Cite

1.
Toro M, Leitao J, Sánchez G, Yoma T, Fernández E, Chaple Gil AM. Influence of implant macro-designs on primary and secondary implant stability. Rev Cubana Inv Bioméd [Internet]. 2023 Nov. 11 [cited 2025 Nov. 7];42(1). Available from: https://revibiomedica.sld.cu/index.php/ibi/article/view/1952

Issue

Vol. 42 (2023)

Section

ARTÍCULOS ORIGINALES

License

Aquellos autores/as que tengan publicaciones con esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes: Los autores/as conservarán sus derechos de autor y garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra, el cuál estará simultáneamente sujeto a la Licencia de reconocimiento de Creative Commons (CC-BY-NC 4.0) que permite a terceros compartir la obra siempre que se indique su autor y su primera publicación esta revista. Los autores/as podrán adoptar otros acuerdos de licencia no exclusiva de distribución de la versión de la obra publicada (p. ej.: depositarla en un archivo telemático institucional o publicarla en un volumen monográfico) siempre que se indique la publicación inicial en esta revista. Se permite y recomienda a los autores/as difundir su obra a través de Internet (p. ej.: en archivos telemáticos institucionales o en su página web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, lo cual puede producir intercambios interesantes y aumentar las citas de la obra publicada. (Véase El efecto del acceso abierto).

Como Revista Cubana de Investigaciones Biomédicas forma parte de la red SciELO, una vez los artículos sean aceptados para entrar al proceso editorial (revisión), estos pueden ser depositados por parte de los autores, si estan de acuerdo, en SciELO preprints, siendo actualizados por los autores al concluir el proceso de revisión y las pruebas de maquetación.