Shlomo Barak1, Shlomo Matalon2, Oleg Dolkart3, Barbara Zavan4, Carmen Mortellaro5, Adriano Piattelli6. 1. Private Practice. 2. Department of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv. 3. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv, Israel. 4. Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Padua, Padua. 5. Department of Medical Science, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara. 6. Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The overall success and predictability of dental implant treatment hinge on the primary stability, direct bone-to implant contact formation, and quantity and/or quality of residual bone. Pulsed electromagnetic field has been reported to increase bone regeneration in various clinical situations. Therefore, it was hypothesized that devices which could locally generate a Pulsed electromagnetic field would stimulate bone healing and increase bone density surrounding implants. OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively assess the effects of the miniaturized electromagnetic device (MED) on the implants stability for the first time in human subjects, in a prospective case controlled series. METHODS: Twelve consecutive patients (28 implants) were included in the study.Twelve MED healing caps and 16 regular control healing caps were inserted. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was performed at implant placement and abutment connection and an implant stability quotient value was given for each implant. RESULTS: Twenty-eight dental implants were included in the current study. Maxillary implants stability was significantly higher with MED healing cups compared with controls at 15 days postimplantation (66.2 vs 62.1, P = .0008). Resonance frequency analysis test performed at 30 days postimplantation demonstrated significantly increased stability in MED as compared with the control 73.5 ± 3.2 vs 66.7 ± 4.8 in mandibular implants and 74 ± 1.7 vs 65 ± 2.3 in maxillary implants. At the 50 days postimplantation, RFA tests revealed markedly higher stability of the maxillary implants with MED active healing caps compared with nonactive 75.4 ± 5.1 vs 68.5 ± 8.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that MED-abutment implants demonstrated a superior stability during the early phase of healing as compared with standard implants.
BACKGROUND: The overall success and predictability of dental implant treatment hinge on the primary stability, direct bone-to implant contact formation, and quantity and/or quality of residual bone. Pulsed electromagnetic field has been reported to increase bone regeneration in various clinical situations. Therefore, it was hypothesized that devices which could locally generate a Pulsed electromagnetic field would stimulate bone healing and increase bone density surrounding implants. OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively assess the effects of the miniaturized electromagnetic device (MED) on the implants stability for the first time in human subjects, in a prospective case controlled series. METHODS: Twelve consecutive patients (28 implants) were included in the study.Twelve MED healing caps and 16 regular control healing caps were inserted. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was performed at implant placement and abutment connection and an implant stability quotient value was given for each implant. RESULTS: Twenty-eight dental implants were included in the current study. Maxillary implants stability was significantly higher with MED healing cups compared with controls at 15 days postimplantation (66.2 vs 62.1, P = .0008). Resonance frequency analysis test performed at 30 days postimplantation demonstrated significantly increased stability in MED as compared with the control 73.5 ± 3.2 vs 66.7 ± 4.8 in mandibular implants and 74 ± 1.7 vs 65 ± 2.3 in maxillary implants. At the 50 days postimplantation, RFA tests revealed markedly higher stability of the maxillary implants with MED active healing caps compared with nonactive 75.4 ± 5.1 vs 68.5 ± 8.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that MED-abutment implants demonstrated a superior stability during the early phase of healing as compared with standard implants.