Shi-Min Wei1, Jun-Yu Shi1, Shi-Chong Qiao1, Xiao Zhang1, Hong-Chang Lai2, Xiao-Meng Zhang3. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Implantology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Laboratory of Stomatology & Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Implantology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Laboratory of Stomatology & Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China. lhc9@hotmail.com. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Implantology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Laboratory of Stomatology & Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China. zhangxiaomengwowo@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy and primary stability of tapered and straight implants undergoing immediate implant placement with dynamic navigation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with compromised anterior teeth in maxilla were recruited and allocated randomly into (1) tapered implant group (TI group) and (2) straight implant group (SI group). Implants were inserted into fresh sockets with dynamic navigation. Three-dimensional platform deviation, apex deviation, angular deviation, insertion torque value (ITV) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty patients with 20 implants were included. The overall platform, apex, and angular deviation were 0.87 ± 0.35 mm, 0.81 ± 0.34 mm, and 2.40 ± 1.31°, respectively. The accuracy was 0.86 ± 0.26 mm, 0.76 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.49 ± 1.54° for TI, and 0.89 ± 0.44 mm, 0.88 ± 0.36 mm, and 2.31 ± 1.01° for SI, with no significant difference (p = 0.85, 0.45, 0.76). Sagittal root position classification (SRP) class I may obtain greater error in numerical values in straight implants (0.97 ± 0.47 mm vs. 0.6 ± 0.16 mm, 0.92 ± 0.36 mm vs. 0.73 ± 0.36 mm, 2.48 ± 1.19° vs. 1.71 ± 0.14°). The overall ISQ was 60.74. ISQ was 60.48 for TI and 60.96 for SI, with no significant difference. Acceptable ITV (> 15 Ncm) was achieved in most of the included patients (SI 7/10, TI 9/10). CONCLUSIONS: High accuracy and primary stability of immediate implant placement could be achieved both in tapered and straight implants with dynamic navigation systems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Tapered and straight implants did not reach a consensus on which was better in immediate implant regarding to accuracy and primary stability. Our study demonstrated implant macrodesign did not affect accuracy and primary stability in immediate implant using dynamic navigation.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy and primary stability of tapered and straight implants undergoing immediate implant placement with dynamic navigation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with compromised anterior teeth in maxilla were recruited and allocated randomly into (1) tapered implant group (TI group) and (2) straight implant group (SI group). Implants were inserted into fresh sockets with dynamic navigation. Three-dimensional platform deviation, apex deviation, angular deviation, insertion torque value (ITV) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty patients with 20 implants were included. The overall platform, apex, and angular deviation were 0.87 ± 0.35 mm, 0.81 ± 0.34 mm, and 2.40 ± 1.31°, respectively. The accuracy was 0.86 ± 0.26 mm, 0.76 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.49 ± 1.54° for TI, and 0.89 ± 0.44 mm, 0.88 ± 0.36 mm, and 2.31 ± 1.01° for SI, with no significant difference (p = 0.85, 0.45, 0.76). Sagittal root position classification (SRP) class I may obtain greater error in numerical values in straight implants (0.97 ± 0.47 mm vs. 0.6 ± 0.16 mm, 0.92 ± 0.36 mm vs. 0.73 ± 0.36 mm, 2.48 ± 1.19° vs. 1.71 ± 0.14°). The overall ISQ was 60.74. ISQ was 60.48 for TI and 60.96 for SI, with no significant difference. Acceptable ITV (> 15 Ncm) was achieved in most of the included patients (SI 7/10, TI 9/10). CONCLUSIONS: High accuracy and primary stability of immediate implant placement could be achieved both in tapered and straight implants with dynamic navigation systems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Tapered and straight implants did not reach a consensus on which was better in immediate implant regarding to accuracy and primary stability. Our study demonstrated implant macrodesign did not affect accuracy and primary stability in immediate implant using dynamic navigation.
Authors: Ronald E Jung; David Schneider; Jeffrey Ganeles; Daniel Wismeijer; Marcel Zwahlen; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Ali Tahmaseb Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Jocelyne Feine; Samir Abou-Ayash; Majd Al Mardini; Ronaldo Barcelllos de Santana; Trine Bjelke-Holtermann; Michael M Bornstein; Urs Braegger; Olivia Cao; Luca Cordaro; Didier Eycken; Mathieu Fillion; Georges Gebran; Guy Huynh-Ba; Tim Joda; Robert Levine; Nikos Mattheos; Thomas W Oates; Hani Abd-Ul-Salam; Robert Santosa; Shakeel Shahdad; Stefano Storelli; Nikitas Sykaras; Alejandro Treviño Santos; Ulrike Stephanie Webersberger; Mary Ann H Williams; Thomas G Wilson; Daniel Wismeijer; Julia-Gabriela Wittneben; Coral Jie Yao; Juan Pablo Villareal Zubiria Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 5.977