Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

ARTICLE

Analyzing the Influence of a New Dental Implant Design on Primary Stability

Mariana Lima da Costa Valente PSD

Master student

Department of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author

Denise Tornavoi de Castro PSD,

Denise Tornavoi de Castro PSD

Master student

Department of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author

Antonio Carlos Shimano AP,

Antonio Carlos Shimano AP

associate professor

Department of Biomechanics, Medicine, and Rehabilitation of Locomotive Apparatus, School of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author

César Penazzo Lepri AP,

César Penazzo Lepri AP

professor

Department of Biomaterials, School of Dentistry of Uberaba, Uberaba, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author

Andréa Cândido dos Reis AP,

Corresponding Author

Andréa Cândido dos Reis AP

associate professor

Department of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

Corresponding Author: Prof. Andréa Cândido dos Reis, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Av. do Café, s/n°, Ribeirão Preto, SP 14040-904, Brazil; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Mariana Lima da Costa Valente PSD,

Mariana Lima da Costa Valente PSD

Master student

Department of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author

Denise Tornavoi de Castro PSD,

Denise Tornavoi de Castro PSD

Master student

Department of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author

Antonio Carlos Shimano AP,

Antonio Carlos Shimano AP

associate professor

Department of Biomechanics, Medicine, and Rehabilitation of Locomotive Apparatus, School of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author

César Penazzo Lepri AP,

César Penazzo Lepri AP

professor

Department of Biomaterials, School of Dentistry of Uberaba, Uberaba, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author

Andréa Cândido dos Reis AP,

Corresponding Author

Andréa Cândido dos Reis AP

associate professor

Department of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

First published: 19 March 2015

https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12324

Citations: 23

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Background

The macrogeometry of dental implants strongly influences the primary stability and hence the osseointegration process.

Purpose

Compare the performance of conventional and modified implant models in terms of primary stability.

Materials and Methods

A total of 36 implants (Neodent®) with two different formats (n = 18): Alvim CM (Conical CM, Ø 4.3 mm × 10 mm in length) and Titamax Ti (Cylindrical HE, Ø 4.0 mm × 11 mm in length) were inserted into artificial bone blocks. Nine implants from each set were selected to undergo external geometry changes. The primary stability was quantified by insertion torque and resonance frequency using an Osstell device and the pullout test. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test were used for statistical evaluation.

Results

The comparative analysis of the implants showed a significant increase of the insertion torque for the modified Conical CM implants (p = 0.000) and Cylindrical HE (p = 0.043); for the resonance frequency the modified Cylindrical HE showed a lower statistical mean (p = 0.002) when compared to the conventional model, and in the pullout test both modified implants showed significant reduction (p = 0.000).

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, the proposed modification showed good stability levels and advantages when compared to the conventional implants.

References

1Romanos GE, Ciornei G, Jucan A, Malmstrom H, Gupta B. In vitro assessment of primary stability of Straumann® implant designs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014; 16: 89–95.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00464.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2Dos Santos MV, Elias CN, Cavalcanti Lima JH. The effects of superficial roughness and design on the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011; 13: 215–223.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00202.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3Jung UW, Kim S, Lee IK, Kim ML, Lee JS, Kim HJ. Secondary stability of microthickness hidroxyapatite-coated dental implants installed without primary stability in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25: 1169–1174.
10.1111/clr.12226
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Freitas AC Jr, Bonfante EA, Giro G, Janal MN, Coelho PG. The effect of implant design on insertion torque and immediate micromotion. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 113–118.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02142.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Chong L, Ahmed K, Jon BS, John G. Effect of implant design on initial stability of tapered implants. J Oral Implantol 2009; 35: 130–135.
10.1563/1548-1336-35.3.130
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6O'Sullivan DL, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Influence of implant taper on the primary and secondary stability of osseointegrated titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 474–480.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01041.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Glauser R, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Resonance frequency analysis of implants subjected to immediate or early functional occlusal loading. Successful versus failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 428–434.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01036.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Toyoshima T, Wagner W, Klein MO, Stender E, Wieland M, Al-Nawas B. Primary stability of a hybrid self-tapping implant compared to a cylindrical non-self-tapping implant with respect to drilling protocols in an ex vivo model. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011; 13: 71–78.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00185.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9Orsini E, Giavaresi G, Trirè A, Ottani V, Salgarello S. Dental implant thread pitch and its influence on the osseointegration process: an in vivo comparison study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27: 383–392.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Desai SR, Desai MS, Katti G, Karthikeyan I. Evaluation of design parameters of eight dental implant designs: a two-dimensional finite element analysis. Niger J Clin Pract 2012; 15: 176–181.
10.4103/1119-3077.97308
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Chang CL, Chen CS, Huang CH, Hsu ML. Finite element analysis of the dental implant using a topology optimization method. Med Eng Phys 2012; 34: 999–1008.
10.1016/j.medengphy.2012.06.004
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12Lundgren D, Slotte C, Gröndahl K. A novel type of dental tube implant for areas with limited bone height. Clinical and radiographic data from three patients with 5-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013; 15: 509–516.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00414.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Maló P, Nobre MA, Petersson U, Wigren S. A pilot study of complete edentulous rehabilitation with immediate function using a new implant design: case series. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006; 8: 223–232.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2006.00024.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14Heidemann W, Terheyden H, Louis Gerlach K. Analysis of the osseous/metal interface of drill free screws and self-tapping screws. J Maxillofac Surg 2001; 29: 69–74.
10.1054/jcms.2000.0179
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Gupta N, Kotrashetti SM, Naik V. A comparative clinical study between self-tapping and drill free screws as a source of rigid orthodontic anchorage. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2012; 11: 29–33.
10.1007/s12663-011-0240-y
PubMed Google Scholar
16Jimbo R, Tovar N, Marin C, et al. The impact of a modified cutting flute implant design on osseointegration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 43: 883–888.
10.1016/j.ijom.2014.01.016
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17Meredith N, Alleyne D, Cawley P. Quantitative determination of the stability of the implant tissue interface using resonance frequency analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996; 7: 261–267.
10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070308.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18Atsumi M, Park SK, Wang HL. Methods used to assess implant stability: current status. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22: 743–754.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Kim DS, Lee WJ, Choi SC, et al. Comparison of dental implant stabilities by impact response and resonance frequencies using artificial bone. Med Eng Phys 2014; 36: 715–720.
10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.12.004
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20Zdeblick TA, Kunz DN, Cooke ME, McCabe R. Pedicle screw pullout strength. Correlation with insertional torque. Spine 1993; 18: 1673–1676.
10.1097/00007632-199309000-00016
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21Porto MA, Silva P, Rosa R, et al. Experimental in vivo acute and chronic biomechanical and histomorphometrical comparison of self-drilling and self-tapping anterior cervical screws. Eur Spine J 2012; 21: 956–963.
10.1007/s00586-011-2120-z
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Turkyilmaz I, McGlumphy E. Influence of bone density on implant stability parameters and implant success: a retrospective clinical study. BMC Oral Health 2008; 32: 1–8.
Google Scholar
23Hsu CC, Chao CK, Wang JL, Hou SM, Tsai YT, Lin J. Increase of pullout strength of spinal pedicle screws with conical core: biomechanical tests and finite element analyses. J Orthop Res 2005; 23: 788–794.
10.1016/j.orthres.2004.11.002
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24Petrie CS, Williams JL. Comparative evaluation of implant designs: influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest. A three-dimensional finite-element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16: 486–494.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01132.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25Quek CE, Tan KB, Nicholls JI. Load fatigue performance of a single-tooth implant abutment system: effect of diameter. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21: 929–936.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26Zweers J, van Doornik A, Hogendorf EA, Quirynen M, Van der Weijden GA. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of narrow- versus regular-diameter dental implants: a 3-year follow-up. A retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26: 149–156.
10.1111/clr.12309
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume18, Issue1

February 2016

Pages 168-173

Analyzing the Influence of a New Dental Implant Design on Primary Stability

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley