D O'Sullivan1, L Sennerby, N Meredith. 1. Leeds Dental Institute, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds LS2 9LU, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of different dental implant designs are currently in clinical use. A successful outcome of implant placement is thought, at least in part, to be due to the primary stability of an implant after placement. Few data are available for comparing the primary stability characteristics of different implant designs. PURPOSE: This investigation compared the primary stability of five types of endosseous dental implant of varying geometry and surface topography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparison was made between a standard threaded commercially pure titanium implant (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden), the Mark II self-tapping implant (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden), the Mark IV tapered self-tapping implant (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden), the Astra Tioblast (AstraTech AB, Mölndahl, Sweden), and the 3i Osseotite (3I [Implant Innovations Incorporated], Palm Beach, Florida, USA). Fifty-two fixtures were placed in the maxillary bone of nine unembalmed human cadavers. Implant stability as a function of peak insertion torque and resonance frequency values was recorded for each fixture site after placement. Removal torque was also measured 1-hour postinsertion. Assessment of bone quality at each site was made. RESULTS: All of the implants tested demonstrated good primary stability in type 2 and 3 bone. The Standard, Mark II, Osseotite, and Tioblast were less stable when placed into bone type 4. The Mark IV implants appeared to maintain a high primary stability even in Type 4 bone. CONCLUSION: When looking across all bone qualities, the Mark IV implant develops a significantly higher insertion torque than the Standard, Mark II, and Osseotite implant types, and a significantly higher resonance frequency value than the Standard implant, indicating a higher interfacial stiffness at the implant-bone interface.
BACKGROUND: A number of different dental implant designs are currently in clinical use. A successful outcome of implant placement is thought, at least in part, to be due to the primary stability of an implant after placement. Few data are available for comparing the primary stability characteristics of different implant designs. PURPOSE: This investigation compared the primary stability of five types of endosseous dental implant of varying geometry and surface topography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparison was made between a standard threaded commercially pure titanium implant (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden), the Mark II self-tapping implant (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden), the Mark IV tapered self-tapping implant (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden), the Astra Tioblast (AstraTech AB, Mölndahl, Sweden), and the 3i Osseotite (3I [Implant Innovations Incorporated], Palm Beach, Florida, USA). Fifty-two fixtures were placed in the maxillary bone of nine unembalmed human cadavers. Implant stability as a function of peak insertion torque and resonance frequency values was recorded for each fixture site after placement. Removal torque was also measured 1-hour postinsertion. Assessment of bone quality at each site was made. RESULTS: All of the implants tested demonstrated good primary stability in type 2 and 3 bone. The Standard, Mark II, Osseotite, and Tioblast were less stable when placed into bone type 4. The Mark IV implants appeared to maintain a high primary stability even in Type 4 bone. CONCLUSION: When looking across all bone qualities, the Mark IV implant develops a significantly higher insertion torque than the Standard, Mark II, and Osseotite implant types, and a significantly higher resonance frequency value than the Standard implant, indicating a higher interfacial stiffness at the implant-bone interface.