PURPOSE: This systematic review was prepared as part of the Academy of Osseointegration (AO) 2018 Summit, held August 8-10 in Oak Brook Hills, Illinois, to assess the relationship between the primary (mechanical) and secondary (biological) implant stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic and manual searches were conducted by two independent examiners in order to address the following issues. Meta-regression analyses explored the relationship between primary stability, as measured by insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ), and secondary stability, by means of survival and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL). RESULTS: Overall, 37 articles were included for quantitative assessment. Of these, 17 reported on implant stability using only resonance frequncy analysis (RFA), 11 used only IT data, 7 used a combination of RFA and IT, and 2 used only the Periotest. The following findings were reached: ·Relationship between primary and secondary implant stability: Strong positive statistically significant relationship (P < .001). ·Relationship between primary stability by means of ISQ and implant survival: No statistically significant relationship (P = .4). ·Relationship between IT and implant survival: No statistically significant relationship (P = .2). ·Relationship between primary stability by means of ISQ unit and MBL: No statistically significant relationship (P = .9). ·Relationship between IT and MBL: Positive statistically significant relationship (P = .02). ·Accuracy of methods and devices to assess implant stability: Insufficient data to address this issue. CONCLUSION: Data suggest that primary/mechanical stability leads to more efficient achievement of secondary/biological stability, but the achievement of high primary stability might be detrimental for bone level stability. While current methods/devices for tracking implant stability over time can be clinically useful, a robust connection between existing stability metrics with implant survival remains inconclusive.
PURPOSE: This systematic review was prepared as part of the Academy of Osseointegration (AO) 2018 Summit, held August 8-10 in Oak Brook Hills, Illinois, to assess the relationship between the primary (mechanical) and secondary (biological) implant stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic and manual searches were conducted by two independent examiners in order to address the following issues. Meta-regression analyses explored the relationship between primary stability, as measured by insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ), and secondary stability, by means of survival and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL). RESULTS: Overall, 37 articles were included for quantitative assessment. Of these, 17 reported on implant stability using only resonance frequncy analysis (RFA), 11 used only IT data, 7 used a combination of RFA and IT, and 2 used only the Periotest. The following findings were reached: ·Relationship between primary and secondary implant stability: Strong positive statistically significant relationship (P < .001). ·Relationship between primary stability by means of ISQ and implant survival: No statistically significant relationship (P = .4). ·Relationship between IT and implant survival: No statistically significant relationship (P = .2). ·Relationship between primary stability by means of ISQ unit and MBL: No statistically significant relationship (P = .9). ·Relationship between IT and MBL: Positive statistically significant relationship (P = .02). ·Accuracy of methods and devices to assess implant stability: Insufficient data to address this issue. CONCLUSION: Data suggest that primary/mechanical stability leads to more efficient achievement of secondary/biological stability, but the achievement of high primary stability might be detrimental for bone level stability. While current methods/devices for tracking implant stability over time can be clinically useful, a robust connection between existing stability metrics with implant survival remains inconclusive.
Authors: Benjamin R Coyac; Brian Leahy; Zhijun Li; Giuseppe Salvi; Xing Yin; John B Brunski; Jill A Helms Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Martina Sladkova-Faure; Michael Pujari-Palmer; Caroline Öhman-Mägi; Alejandro López; Hanbin Wang; Håkan Engqvist; Giuseppe Maria de Peppo Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Gabriele Cervino; Agron Meto; Luca Fiorillo; Alessandra Odorici; Aida Meto; Cesare D'Amico; Giacomo Oteri; Marco Cicciù Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Luis Alfredo Díaz-Olivares; Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann; Natalia Martínez-Rodríguez; José María Martínez-González; Juan López-Quiles; Isabel Leco-Berrocal; Cristina Meniz-García Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2021-07-12
Authors: Remigiusz M Grzeskowiak; Laura R Freeman; David P Harper; David E Anderson; Pierre-Yves Mulon Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 3.494