OBJECTIVE: To compare implant stability between 1- and 2-stage Nobel Biocare TiUnite implants at various points of time after placement. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients were enrolled according to specific selection criteria to 1- or 2-stage treatment. Nineteen patients received 35 1-stage early loaded implants, and 10 patients received 26 2-stage early loaded implants. A total of 32 Branemark System MKIII Groovy and 29 NobelSpeedy Groovy implants were placed in the premolar and molar areas. Implant stability was assessed, in both groups, by means of the Osstell Mentor device at the time of implant placement and at 8 and 12 weeks. All patients were monitored from implant placement until 6 months of function. RESULTS: One 1-stage complicated implant showed discontinuous measurements, and this patient was excluded from the analysis. In the maxilla (31 implants), there was no significant difference for implant stability quotients between the groups at any point (P > .05). In the mandible (29 implants), there was no significant difference for ISQ between the groups at baseline or 8 weeks (P > .05); however, a significant difference was found after 12 weeks (P = .0261). No implant failed between surgery and the end of the study, and there was an overall survival rate of 100%. CONCLUSION: High ISQ values were found in both groups at each time point. One-stage technique is a viable alternative to 2-stage technique. The utilized implants seem to be suitable for early loading in both arches. NobelSpeedy Groovy showed a higher primary anchorage, especially in the maxilla.
OBJECTIVE: To compare implant stability between 1- and 2-stage Nobel Biocare TiUnite implants at various points of time after placement. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients were enrolled according to specific selection criteria to 1- or 2-stage treatment. Nineteen patients received 35 1-stage early loaded implants, and 10 patients received 26 2-stage early loaded implants. A total of 32 Branemark System MKIII Groovy and 29 NobelSpeedy Groovy implants were placed in the premolar and molar areas. Implant stability was assessed, in both groups, by means of the Osstell Mentor device at the time of implant placement and at 8 and 12 weeks. All patients were monitored from implant placement until 6 months of function. RESULTS: One 1-stage complicated implant showed discontinuous measurements, and this patient was excluded from the analysis. In the maxilla (31 implants), there was no significant difference for implant stability quotients between the groups at any point (P > .05). In the mandible (29 implants), there was no significant difference for ISQ between the groups at baseline or 8 weeks (P > .05); however, a significant difference was found after 12 weeks (P = .0261). No implant failed between surgery and the end of the study, and there was an overall survival rate of 100%. CONCLUSION: High ISQ values were found in both groups at each time point. One-stage technique is a viable alternative to 2-stage technique. The utilized implants seem to be suitable for early loading in both arches. NobelSpeedy Groovy showed a higher primary anchorage, especially in the maxilla.