Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare a parallel wall design implant to a tapered apex design implant when placed in the posterior maxilla using two different surgical protocols. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients (30 implants) were divided into three groups. All implants were 4 mm wide i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Simmons, David E., Maney, Pooja, Teitelbaum, Austin G., Billiot, Susan, Popat, Lomesh J., Palaiologou, A. Archontia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5411487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28466248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0078-2
_version_ 1783232841449996288
author Simmons, David E.
Maney, Pooja
Teitelbaum, Austin G.
Billiot, Susan
Popat, Lomesh J.
Palaiologou, A. Archontia
author_facet Simmons, David E.
Maney, Pooja
Teitelbaum, Austin G.
Billiot, Susan
Popat, Lomesh J.
Palaiologou, A. Archontia
author_sort Simmons, David E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare a parallel wall design implant to a tapered apex design implant when placed in the posterior maxilla using two different surgical protocols. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients (30 implants) were divided into three groups. All implants were 4 mm wide in diameter and 8 mm long. Group A received 10 tapered implants (OSPTX) (Astra Tech OsseoSpeed TX™) using the soft bone surgical protocol (TXSoft). Group B received 10 tapered implants (OSPTX) (AstraTech OsseoSpeedTX™) using the standard surgical protocol (TXStd). Group C received 10 parallel wall implants (OSP) (AstraTech OsseoSpeed™) using the standard surgical protocol (OStd). All implants were placed in the posterior maxilla in areas with a minimum of 8-mm crestal bone height. Resonance frequency measurements (implant stability quotient (ISQ)) and torque values were recorded to determine initial implant stability. All implants were uncovered 6 weeks after placement and restored with a functionally loaded resin provisional screw-retained crown. Resonance frequency measurements were recorded at the time of implant placement, at 6 weeks and 6 and 12 months. Twelve months after implant placement, the stability of the implants was recorded and the final restorations were placed using custom CAD/CAM fabricated abutments and cement-retained PFM DSIGN porcelain crowns. After implant restoration, bone levels were measured at 6 and 12 months with standardized radiographs. RESULTS: Radiographic mean bone loss was less than 0.5 mm in all groups, with no statistically significant differences between the groups. Implant survival rate at 1 year was 93.3%, with 2/30 implants failing to integrate prior to functional loading at 6 weeks. No statistically significant difference was found between ISQ measurements between the three groups at all time intervals measured. Strong positive correlations were found between overall bone loss at 6 months and insertion torque at time of placement. A very weak correlation was found between insertion torque and ISQ values at time of implant placement. CONCLUSIONS: Survival and stability of OSPTX and OSP implants is comparable. Osteotomy preparation by either standard or soft bone surgical protocol presented no significant effect on implant survival and stability for the specific implant designs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5411487
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54114872017-05-17 Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study Simmons, David E. Maney, Pooja Teitelbaum, Austin G. Billiot, Susan Popat, Lomesh J. Palaiologou, A. Archontia Int J Implant Dent Research BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare a parallel wall design implant to a tapered apex design implant when placed in the posterior maxilla using two different surgical protocols. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients (30 implants) were divided into three groups. All implants were 4 mm wide in diameter and 8 mm long. Group A received 10 tapered implants (OSPTX) (Astra Tech OsseoSpeed TX™) using the soft bone surgical protocol (TXSoft). Group B received 10 tapered implants (OSPTX) (AstraTech OsseoSpeedTX™) using the standard surgical protocol (TXStd). Group C received 10 parallel wall implants (OSP) (AstraTech OsseoSpeed™) using the standard surgical protocol (OStd). All implants were placed in the posterior maxilla in areas with a minimum of 8-mm crestal bone height. Resonance frequency measurements (implant stability quotient (ISQ)) and torque values were recorded to determine initial implant stability. All implants were uncovered 6 weeks after placement and restored with a functionally loaded resin provisional screw-retained crown. Resonance frequency measurements were recorded at the time of implant placement, at 6 weeks and 6 and 12 months. Twelve months after implant placement, the stability of the implants was recorded and the final restorations were placed using custom CAD/CAM fabricated abutments and cement-retained PFM DSIGN porcelain crowns. After implant restoration, bone levels were measured at 6 and 12 months with standardized radiographs. RESULTS: Radiographic mean bone loss was less than 0.5 mm in all groups, with no statistically significant differences between the groups. Implant survival rate at 1 year was 93.3%, with 2/30 implants failing to integrate prior to functional loading at 6 weeks. No statistically significant difference was found between ISQ measurements between the three groups at all time intervals measured. Strong positive correlations were found between overall bone loss at 6 months and insertion torque at time of placement. A very weak correlation was found between insertion torque and ISQ values at time of implant placement. CONCLUSIONS: Survival and stability of OSPTX and OSP implants is comparable. Osteotomy preparation by either standard or soft bone surgical protocol presented no significant effect on implant survival and stability for the specific implant designs. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5411487/ /pubmed/28466248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0078-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research
Simmons, David E.
Maney, Pooja
Teitelbaum, Austin G.
Billiot, Susan
Popat, Lomesh J.
Palaiologou, A. Archontia
Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
title Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
title_full Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
title_short Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
title_sort comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5411487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28466248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0078-2
work_keys_str_mv AT simmonsdavide comparativeevaluationofthestabilityoftwodifferentdentalimplantdesignsandsurgicalprotocolsapilotstudy
AT maneypooja comparativeevaluationofthestabilityoftwodifferentdentalimplantdesignsandsurgicalprotocolsapilotstudy
AT teitelbaumausting comparativeevaluationofthestabilityoftwodifferentdentalimplantdesignsandsurgicalprotocolsapilotstudy
AT billiotsusan comparativeevaluationofthestabilityoftwodifferentdentalimplantdesignsandsurgicalprotocolsapilotstudy
AT popatlomeshj comparativeevaluationofthestabilityoftwodifferentdentalimplantdesignsandsurgicalprotocolsapilotstudy
AT palaiologouaarchontia comparativeevaluationofthestabilityoftwodifferentdentalimplantdesignsandsurgicalprotocolsapilotstudy