PURPOSE: This retrospective chart review study assessed patient records to determine implant insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values during implant placement to evaluate the correlation with cortical bone anchorage (mono- or bicortical). METHODS: Primary stability data (IT during implant placement surgery and ISQ values immediately after implant placement) and cone beam computed tomography of 33 patients (165 implants) were assessed. Patients were divided into the following groups: G1, implants with apical cortical bone contact; G2, implants with bicortical bone contact (apical and cervical regions); and G3, implants with cervical cortical bone contact. RESULTS: Sixty-eight implants were excluded due to cortical bone contact on regions other than implant apical or cervical. Ninety-seven implants were therefore assessed for this study. No implant failure was found after a mean 70.42-month follow-up time. Implants with bicortical anchorage (G2) showed higher IT (64.1 Ncm) during implant placement and higher ISQ values (76) (p < 0.05). Monocortical implants (G1, apical, and G3, cervical) showed similar IT (G1 52.3 and G3 54.3) and ISQ values (G1 71.9 and G3 73) (p > 0.05). No correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient) was found between the two stability measurement devices for the different cortical bone anchorages that were analyzed (G1 0.190, G2 0.039, and G3 - 0.027) (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Insertion torque values and implant stability quotients were influenced by cortical bone contact. No significant correlation was found between IT and ISQ values-higher insertion torque values do not necessarily lead to higher implant stability quotients.
PURPOSE: This retrospective chart review study assessed patient records to determine implant insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values during implant placement to evaluate the correlation with cortical bone anchorage (mono- or bicortical). METHODS: Primary stability data (IT during implant placement surgery and ISQ values immediately after implant placement) and cone beam computed tomography of 33 patients (165 implants) were assessed. Patients were divided into the following groups: G1, implants with apical cortical bone contact; G2, implants with bicortical bone contact (apical and cervical regions); and G3, implants with cervical cortical bone contact. RESULTS: Sixty-eight implants were excluded due to cortical bone contact on regions other than implant apical or cervical. Ninety-seven implants were therefore assessed for this study. No implant failure was found after a mean 70.42-month follow-up time. Implants with bicortical anchorage (G2) showed higher IT (64.1 Ncm) during implant placement and higher ISQ values (76) (p < 0.05). Monocortical implants (G1, apical, and G3, cervical) showed similar IT (G1 52.3 and G3 54.3) and ISQ values (G1 71.9 and G3 73) (p > 0.05). No correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient) was found between the two stability measurement devices for the different cortical bone anchorages that were analyzed (G1 0.190, G2 0.039, and G3 - 0.027) (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Insertion torque values and implant stability quotients were influenced by cortical bone contact. No significant correlation was found between IT and ISQ values-higher insertion torque values do not necessarily lead to higher implant stability quotients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone anchorage; Bone density; Dental implants; Implant stability; Insertion torque; Mandible; Resonance frequency analysis
Authors: C J Ivanoff; K Gröndahl; C Bergström; U Lekholm; P I Brånemark Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2000 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Emeka Nkenke; Michael Hahn; Konstanze Weinzierl; Martin Radespiel-Tröger; Friedrich Wilhelm Neukam; Klaus Engelke Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.977