Cargando…

Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants

Background: The aim of the present study was to compare, in low-density polyurethane blocks, the primary implant stability values (micromobility) and removal torque values of three different implant geometries in two different bone densities representing the structure of the human posterior jaws. Me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Comuzzi, Luca, Tumedei, Margherita, Pontes, Ana Emilia, Piattelli, Adriano, Iezzi, Giovanna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7216137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32290361
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082617
_version_ 1783532349592436736
author Comuzzi, Luca
Tumedei, Margherita
Pontes, Ana Emilia
Piattelli, Adriano
Iezzi, Giovanna
author_facet Comuzzi, Luca
Tumedei, Margherita
Pontes, Ana Emilia
Piattelli, Adriano
Iezzi, Giovanna
author_sort Comuzzi, Luca
collection PubMed
description Background: The aim of the present study was to compare, in low-density polyurethane blocks, the primary implant stability values (micromobility) and removal torque values of three different implant geometries in two different bone densities representing the structure of the human posterior jaws. Methods: A total of 60 implants were used in the present investigation: twenty implants for each of three groups (group A, group B, and group C), in both polyurethane 10 pcf and 20 pcf densities. The insertion torque, pull-out torque, and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were obtained. Results: No differences were found in the values of Group A and Group B implants. In both these groups, the insertion torques were quite low in the 10 pcf blocks. Better results were found in the 20 pcf blocks, which showed very good stability of the implants. The pull-out values were slightly lower than the insertion torque values. High ISQ values were found in Group A and B implants. Lower values were present in Group C implants. Conclusions: The present investigation evaluated implants with different geometries that are available on the market, and not experimental implants specifically created for the study. The authors aimed to simulate real clinical conditions (poor-density bone or immediate post-extraction implants) in which knowledge of dental implant features, which may be useful in increasing the primary stability, may help the oral surgeon during the surgery planning.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7216137
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72161372020-05-22 Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants Comuzzi, Luca Tumedei, Margherita Pontes, Ana Emilia Piattelli, Adriano Iezzi, Giovanna Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Background: The aim of the present study was to compare, in low-density polyurethane blocks, the primary implant stability values (micromobility) and removal torque values of three different implant geometries in two different bone densities representing the structure of the human posterior jaws. Methods: A total of 60 implants were used in the present investigation: twenty implants for each of three groups (group A, group B, and group C), in both polyurethane 10 pcf and 20 pcf densities. The insertion torque, pull-out torque, and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were obtained. Results: No differences were found in the values of Group A and Group B implants. In both these groups, the insertion torques were quite low in the 10 pcf blocks. Better results were found in the 20 pcf blocks, which showed very good stability of the implants. The pull-out values were slightly lower than the insertion torque values. High ISQ values were found in Group A and B implants. Lower values were present in Group C implants. Conclusions: The present investigation evaluated implants with different geometries that are available on the market, and not experimental implants specifically created for the study. The authors aimed to simulate real clinical conditions (poor-density bone or immediate post-extraction implants) in which knowledge of dental implant features, which may be useful in increasing the primary stability, may help the oral surgeon during the surgery planning. MDPI 2020-04-11 2020-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7216137/ /pubmed/32290361 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082617 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Comuzzi, Luca
Tumedei, Margherita
Pontes, Ana Emilia
Piattelli, Adriano
Iezzi, Giovanna
Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants
title Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants
title_full Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants
title_fullStr Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants
title_full_unstemmed Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants
title_short Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants
title_sort primary stability of dental implants in low-density (10 and 20 pcf) polyurethane foam blocks: conical vs cylindrical implants
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7216137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32290361
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082617
work_keys_str_mv AT comuzziluca primarystabilityofdentalimplantsinlowdensity10and20pcfpolyurethanefoamblocksconicalvscylindricalimplants
AT tumedeimargherita primarystabilityofdentalimplantsinlowdensity10and20pcfpolyurethanefoamblocksconicalvscylindricalimplants
AT pontesanaemilia primarystabilityofdentalimplantsinlowdensity10and20pcfpolyurethanefoamblocksconicalvscylindricalimplants
AT piattelliadriano primarystabilityofdentalimplantsinlowdensity10and20pcfpolyurethanefoamblocksconicalvscylindricalimplants
AT iezzigiovanna primarystabilityofdentalimplantsinlowdensity10and20pcfpolyurethanefoamblocksconicalvscylindricalimplants