Cargando…
Clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability during healing and before loading of implants placed at two different supracrestal levels according to their collar texture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who received posterior implants with the same ma...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Istanbul University Faculty of Dentisty
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5573511/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28955572 http://dx.doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.96003 |
_version_ | 1783259678778589184 |
---|---|
author | Gultekin, B. Alper Sirali, Ali Gultekin, Pinar Ersanli, Selim |
author_facet | Gultekin, B. Alper Sirali, Ali Gultekin, Pinar Ersanli, Selim |
author_sort | Gultekin, B. Alper |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability during healing and before loading of implants placed at two different supracrestal levels according to their collar texture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who received posterior implants with the same macro design. Implants with a machined collar were placed 0.3 mm above the crestal bone (M group), while those with a laser-microtextured collar were placed 1 mm above the crestal bone (L group). All implants healed in a single stage with healing abutments. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were determined using resonance frequency analysis immediately after implant placement during surgery and after 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after surgery. Other evaluated factors for stability included the implant diameter and length and the site of placement (maxilla or mandible). RESULTS: In total, 103 implants (47 L, 56 M) were evaluated. The median ISQ values at baseline and 1 week after placement were significantly higher for the M group than for the L group (p=0.006 and p=0.031, respectively). There were no differences at the subsequent observation points. The ISQ value was higher for wide-diameter than regular diameter (p=0.001) and mandibular implants than maxillary implants (p=0.001 at 0-8. weeks; p=0.012 at 12 weeks) at all observation points. When diameter data were neglected, the implant length did not influence the ISQ value at all observation points. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that submerging implant more inside bone may only influence primary stability. Moreover, the implant diameter and site of placement influence primary and secondary stability before loading, whereas the implant length does not when its diameter is not accounted for. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5573511 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Istanbul University Faculty of Dentisty |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55735112017-09-27 Clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels Gultekin, B. Alper Sirali, Ali Gultekin, Pinar Ersanli, Selim J Istanb Univ Fac Dent Articles PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability during healing and before loading of implants placed at two different supracrestal levels according to their collar texture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who received posterior implants with the same macro design. Implants with a machined collar were placed 0.3 mm above the crestal bone (M group), while those with a laser-microtextured collar were placed 1 mm above the crestal bone (L group). All implants healed in a single stage with healing abutments. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were determined using resonance frequency analysis immediately after implant placement during surgery and after 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after surgery. Other evaluated factors for stability included the implant diameter and length and the site of placement (maxilla or mandible). RESULTS: In total, 103 implants (47 L, 56 M) were evaluated. The median ISQ values at baseline and 1 week after placement were significantly higher for the M group than for the L group (p=0.006 and p=0.031, respectively). There were no differences at the subsequent observation points. The ISQ value was higher for wide-diameter than regular diameter (p=0.001) and mandibular implants than maxillary implants (p=0.001 at 0-8. weeks; p=0.012 at 12 weeks) at all observation points. When diameter data were neglected, the implant length did not influence the ISQ value at all observation points. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that submerging implant more inside bone may only influence primary stability. Moreover, the implant diameter and site of placement influence primary and secondary stability before loading, whereas the implant length does not when its diameter is not accounted for. Istanbul University Faculty of Dentisty 2016-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5573511/ /pubmed/28955572 http://dx.doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.96003 Text en Copyright © 2016 Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry This article is licensed under Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license ( (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ). Users must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. Users may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the journal endorses its use. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes. If the user remixes, transforms, or builds upon the material, he/she may not distribute the modified material. No warranties are given. The license may not give the user all of the permissions necessary for his/her intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how the material can be used. |
spellingShingle | Articles Gultekin, B. Alper Sirali, Ali Gultekin, Pinar Ersanli, Selim Clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels |
title | Clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels |
title_full | Clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels |
title_fullStr | Clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels |
title_short | Clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels |
title_sort | clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5573511/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28955572 http://dx.doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.96003 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gultekinbalper clinicalevaluationofthestabilityofimplantsplacedatdifferentsupracrestallevels AT siraliali clinicalevaluationofthestabilityofimplantsplacedatdifferentsupracrestallevels AT gultekinpinar clinicalevaluationofthestabilityofimplantsplacedatdifferentsupracrestallevels AT ersanliselim clinicalevaluationofthestabilityofimplantsplacedatdifferentsupracrestallevels |