Abstract
While primary stability still constitutes an important factor for implant success, high levels of insertion torque resulting from bone compression are controversial and may constitute a co-factor in peri-implant bone loss. Adhering to the manufacturers' protocols for medium-quality bone, implant surgery was performed in polyurethane foam blocks equipped with strain gauges attached to the buccal aspect. Following insertion and attachment of provisional abutments, oblique loading was performed. The following parameters were recorded for three different implant types (Straumann Bone Level Tapered [BLT], MIS V3 [V3], Dentsply Sirona ASTRA TX [ASTRA]): maximum insertion and removal torque, maximum strain during insertion and loading, and implant stability before and after loading (resonance frequency analysis [RFA]). Statistical analysis was based on analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey honest significant difference test, and Pearson's product moment correlation (α = .05). Maximum insertion torque (59.9 ± 4.94 Ncm) was recorded for BLT followed by V3 and ASTRA (P < .01 for all comparisons). Maximum removal torque (43.7 ± 9.69 Ncm) was also recorded for BLT, but the pairwise comparisons reached significance only for BLT vs ASTRA (P < .01) and V3 vs BLT (P = .03). Implant stability differed among groups only after loading, where the pairwise comparison between BLT and ASTRA reached significance (P = .02). Maximum strain during insertion was caused by BLT reaching 19,482.62 <m/m, whereas ASTRA implants only caused 6,169.84 <m/m. Strain development during insertion differed significantly among groups (P < .05 for all comparisons). Maximum strain during loading was observed in V3 (646.44 ± 204 μm/m), while only a nonsignificant difference existed between ASTRA and BLT. Insertion torque correlated significantly with strain development (r = 0.68; P < .01), implant stability after loading (r = 0.46; P = .01), and removal torque (r = 0.54; P < .01). Also, implant stability after loading correlated with removal torque (r = 0.86; P < .01). Different implant designs and surgical protocols result in varying levels of bone compression. Implants with a triangular shape do not seem to solve this problem.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.