Implant insertion torque value in immediate loading: A retrospective study.
Journal
Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal
ISSN: 1698-6946
Titre abrégé: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 101231694
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2019
01 May 2019
Historique:
received:
01
11
2018
accepted:
01
03
2019
pubmed:
24
4
2019
medline:
27
11
2019
entrez:
24
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study is to verify if the Insertion Torque Value (ITV) of 32 Ncm for immediate loading protocol (ILP), as indicated by literature, is still, with the advance in implant research, a real significant cut-off for long-term implant survival. In this retrospective study, data from 224 patients that during three years of clinical practice, were submitted to the insertion of 322 implants with immediate loading protocol, have been recorded, pooled and analyzed. Data were organized based on Insertion Torque Value (ITV): > 32 Ncm (CG) and < 32 Ncm (LTG) and two different groups of equal sample size, 161 implants each, were distinguished. Crestal bone reabsorption, and the implant failure rate were evaluated after 2-years of follow-up. The bone reabsorption in LTG (0.49 ± 0.11 mm ) was significantly greater than CG (0.22 ± 0.04 mm), p<0.001. However, the survival rate after 2-years of follow-up was quite high and similar for both groups: 96.89% for LTG and 97.52% for CG and no statistically significant differences have been found among the two groups for the implant failure rate (p=0.455).The Odds Ratio (OR) of implant failure was of 1.258 (95% CI 0.332, 4.772), but results were not statistical significant, p=0.740. The present study showed that although implants with ITV> 32 Ncm are still characterized by a lower crestal bone resorption, there are no statistically significant differences among the two groups for what concerning the failure rate during the 2 years of follow-up and OR. These results permit us to suppose that the cut-off of ITV >32 Ncm for immediate loading implants, could be reduced to inferior values. However further studies are necessary to indicate precise clinical guidelines.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study is to verify if the Insertion Torque Value (ITV) of 32 Ncm for immediate loading protocol (ILP), as indicated by literature, is still, with the advance in implant research, a real significant cut-off for long-term implant survival.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective study, data from 224 patients that during three years of clinical practice, were submitted to the insertion of 322 implants with immediate loading protocol, have been recorded, pooled and analyzed. Data were organized based on Insertion Torque Value (ITV): > 32 Ncm (CG) and < 32 Ncm (LTG) and two different groups of equal sample size, 161 implants each, were distinguished. Crestal bone reabsorption, and the implant failure rate were evaluated after 2-years of follow-up.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The bone reabsorption in LTG (0.49 ± 0.11 mm ) was significantly greater than CG (0.22 ± 0.04 mm), p<0.001. However, the survival rate after 2-years of follow-up was quite high and similar for both groups: 96.89% for LTG and 97.52% for CG and no statistically significant differences have been found among the two groups for the implant failure rate (p=0.455).The Odds Ratio (OR) of implant failure was of 1.258 (95% CI 0.332, 4.772), but results were not statistical significant, p=0.740.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The present study showed that although implants with ITV> 32 Ncm are still characterized by a lower crestal bone resorption, there are no statistically significant differences among the two groups for what concerning the failure rate during the 2 years of follow-up and OR. These results permit us to suppose that the cut-off of ITV >32 Ncm for immediate loading implants, could be reduced to inferior values. However further studies are necessary to indicate precise clinical guidelines.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31011142
pii: 22845
doi: 10.4317/medoral.22845
pmc: PMC6530943
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e398-e403Références
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999 Feb;10(1):1-7
pubmed: 10196784
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003 Apr;14(2):180-7
pubmed: 12656877
J Periodontol. 2003 Feb;74(2):225-41
pubmed: 12666712
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5 Suppl 1:10-20
pubmed: 12691646
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(1):57-60
pubmed: 12831730
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:109-13
pubmed: 15635951
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 Sep-Oct;20(5):769-76
pubmed: 16274152
Implant Dent. 2007 Sep;16(3):235-45
pubmed: 17846539
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Mar;19(3):227-32
pubmed: 18177428
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Jun;19(6):546-52
pubmed: 18422981
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2008 Winter;1(4):259-76
pubmed: 20467634
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Feb;69(2):491-7
pubmed: 21238845
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Jul;40(7):697-703
pubmed: 21458232
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Aug;23(8):981-6
pubmed: 21722196
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Nov;22(11):1303-7
pubmed: 21985288
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011 Winter;4(4):329-44
pubmed: 22282730
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Jul-Aug;27(4):945-56
pubmed: 22848898
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(1):90-5
pubmed: 24313303
J Oral Implantol. 2014 Jun;40(3):259-62
pubmed: 24914911
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Nov;26(11):1256-60
pubmed: 24995491
Periodontol 2000. 2014 Oct;66(1):153-87
pubmed: 25123767
Int J Dent. 2014;2014:204838
pubmed: 25126094
Dent Today. 1989 May;8(4):39-44
pubmed: 2597401
Sci Rep. 2015 Nov 06;5:15995
pubmed: 26542097
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:106-134
pubmed: 30328194
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:255-269
pubmed: 30328205
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986 Summer;1(1):11-25
pubmed: 3527955
Biomaterials. 1983 Jan;4(1):25-8
pubmed: 6838955
Eur J Oral Sci. 1998 Jun;106(3):721-64
pubmed: 9672097