OBJECTIVE: To determine the implant stability in osseodistraction-generated (ODG) bone after a 2-month consolidation period, assessed by resonance frequency analysis (RFA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty healthy, non-smoker female patients received 71 dental implants, 39 placed in native bone and 32 in ODG bone, after an 8-week consolidation period. Primary and secondary stability of the implants was assessed by means of the Osstells mentor device. The average value of six measurements was considered for the statistical analysis at each time point. RESULTS: The age of the patients who received implants in ODG was not significantly different from that of those receiving implants in pristine bone (48.0 +/- 10.9); [X= 1.6; 95% confidence interval (CI)= -7.7-10.9]. Although implants placed in both bone types indicated good primary stability, a statistically significant difference in favour of implants placed in pristine bone could be identified in terms of osteogenic distraction (OD) (X(i)-X(j)= 3.4; 95% CI= 1.7-5.8). After a 1.5-month integration period, none of the implants failed, but implant stability still recorded higher values for implants located in the pristine bone (X(i)-X(j)= 2.5; 95% CI= 0.5-4.4). A positive linear correlation could be established between the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values at implant placement (primary stability) and the post-integration ISQ score (secondary stability) for both bone types, but only 16% of the post-integration ISQ in the ODG bone could be attributed to the primary stability. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, OD bone offers - after a 2-month consolidation period - high primary and secondary stabilities after implant placement.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the implant stability in osseodistraction-generated (ODG) bone after a 2-month consolidation period, assessed by resonance frequency analysis (RFA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty healthy, non-smoker female patients received 71 dental implants, 39 placed in native bone and 32 in ODG bone, after an 8-week consolidation period. Primary and secondary stability of the implants was assessed by means of the Osstells mentor device. The average value of six measurements was considered for the statistical analysis at each time point. RESULTS: The age of the patients who received implants in ODG was not significantly different from that of those receiving implants in pristine bone (48.0 +/- 10.9); [X= 1.6; 95% confidence interval (CI)= -7.7-10.9]. Although implants placed in both bone types indicated good primary stability, a statistically significant difference in favour of implants placed in pristine bone could be identified in terms of osteogenic distraction (OD) (X(i)-X(j)= 3.4; 95% CI= 1.7-5.8). After a 1.5-month integration period, none of the implants failed, but implant stability still recorded higher values for implants located in the pristine bone (X(i)-X(j)= 2.5; 95% CI= 0.5-4.4). A positive linear correlation could be established between the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values at implant placement (primary stability) and the post-integration ISQ score (secondary stability) for both bone types, but only 16% of the post-integration ISQ in the ODG bone could be attributed to the primary stability. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, OD bone offers - after a 2-month consolidation period - high primary and secondary stabilities after implant placement.