Georgios E Romanos1,2, Osnat Kuyunov1, Danielle Sacks1, Jose Luis Calvo-Guirado3, Rafael Delgado-Ruiz4. 1. Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA. 2. Department of Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, Dental School, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. 3. Universidad, Católica San Antonio de Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain. 4. Department of Prosthodontics and Digital Technology, School of Dental Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The implant design and the surgical technique are important parameters that can be modified to improve the implant primary stability. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of the apical part of an implant on the implant stability of implants placed in Type II dense bone by novice and experienced clinicians. METHODS: Implants with a progressive thread design (3.5 mm diameter, 11 mm length) were used. A total of 80 osteotomies were prepared in dense bone samples (quality Type II) by two clinicians with different levels of experience (novice and experienced) under the same surgical protocol. Two experimental groups were prepared. In the test group (apical stability), 40 implants were inserted with only 3 mm of the apical portion of the implant within the bone and without lateral contact between the residual implant length and the osteotomy walls. In the control group (full implant stability), 40 implants were inserted with full contact between the osteotomy walls and the implant surface. The stability of both groups (test and control) was evaluated using a resonance frequency analysis (RFA) (implant stability quotient [ISQ] values). Statistical comparisons between the groups were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn post-test for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: The results did not show statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in terms of primary stability between implants placed by novice or experienced clinicians in dense bone. The control group showed significantly higher ISQ values compared with the test group (P < 0.001). The apical implant stability contributed to ≈ 30% and 43% of the entire implant stability for novice and experienced clinicians, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The apical portion of an implant plays a fundamental role in the entire implant stability and is independent on the clinician's experience. However, precise implant site preparation to guarantee apical implant anchorage is recommended.
BACKGROUND: The implant design and the surgical technique are important parameters that can be modified to improve the implant primary stability. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of the apical part of an implant on the implant stability of implants placed in Type II dense bone by novice and experienced clinicians. METHODS: Implants with a progressive thread design (3.5 mm diameter, 11 mm length) were used. A total of 80 osteotomies were prepared in dense bone samples (quality Type II) by two clinicians with different levels of experience (novice and experienced) under the same surgical protocol. Two experimental groups were prepared. In the test group (apical stability), 40 implants were inserted with only 3 mm of the apical portion of the implant within the bone and without lateral contact between the residual implant length and the osteotomy walls. In the control group (full implant stability), 40 implants were inserted with full contact between the osteotomy walls and the implant surface. The stability of both groups (test and control) was evaluated using a resonance frequency analysis (RFA) (implant stability quotient [ISQ] values). Statistical comparisons between the groups were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn post-test for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: The results did not show statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in terms of primary stability between implants placed by novice or experienced clinicians in dense bone. The control group showed significantly higher ISQ values compared with the test group (P < 0.001). The apical implant stability contributed to ≈ 30% and 43% of the entire implant stability for novice and experienced clinicians, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The apical portion of an implant plays a fundamental role in the entire implant stability and is independent on the clinician's experience. However, precise implant site preparation to guarantee apical implant anchorage is recommended.