Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants.
bone density
conical implants
cylindrical implants
implant stability quotient
insertion and pull-out torque
polyurethane foam blocks
primary stability
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 04 2020
11 04 2020
Historique:
received:
06
02
2020
revised:
06
04
2020
accepted:
08
04
2020
entrez:
16
4
2020
pubmed:
16
4
2020
medline:
23
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32290361
pii: ijerph17082617
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17082617
pmc: PMC7216137
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Polyurethanes
0
polyurethane foam
9009-54-5
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Polymers (Basel). 2019 Jun 10;11(6):
pubmed: 31185590
Interv Med Appl Sci. 2013 Dec;5(4):162-7
pubmed: 24381734
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Jan-Feb;30(1):144-9
pubmed: 25615922
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Jan;17 Suppl 1:e35-44
pubmed: 23879771
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Nov;120(5):706-714
pubmed: 28689908
Int J Oral Implantol. 1987;4(2):7-13
pubmed: 3269839
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Jun;15(3):341-9
pubmed: 22171668
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2007 Sep;9(3):144-9
pubmed: 17716258
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Feb;20(1):26-33
pubmed: 29194944
Angle Orthod. 2012 Jul;82(4):603-10
pubmed: 22149542
Int J Prosthodont. 2015 Jan-Feb;28(1):40-7
pubmed: 25588172
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008 Sep-Oct;23(5):891-6
pubmed: 19014159
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Aug 28;20(17):
pubmed: 31466409
Implant Dent. 2011 Feb;20(1):40-6
pubmed: 21278526
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Nov;54(9):980-986
pubmed: 27461557
Springerplus. 2016 Apr 21;5:494
pubmed: 27186458
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009 Mar;11(1):52-8
pubmed: 18384400
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Jun;29(6):649-655
pubmed: 26916451
Periodontol 2000. 2015 Jun;68(1):122-34
pubmed: 25867983
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Apr;15(2):188-97
pubmed: 21682844
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2006;8(4):218-22
pubmed: 17100747
J Funct Biomater. 2015 Mar 18;6(1):143-52
pubmed: 25794350
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018 Apr 1;19(4):426-430
pubmed: 29728548
J Funct Biomater. 2019 Oct 25;10(4):
pubmed: 31731451
Implant Dent. 2016 Feb;25(1):24-31
pubmed: 26584202
Angle Orthod. 2010 Jul;80(4):446-53
pubmed: 20482347
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2012 Jan-Mar;26(1):89-96
pubmed: 22475100
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Aug;64(8):1190-8
pubmed: 16860208
Dent J (Basel). 2019 Mar 05;7(1):
pubmed: 30841588
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2017 Mar 1;22(2):e201-e206
pubmed: 28160577
Sci Rep. 2019 Aug 14;9(1):11817
pubmed: 31413292
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 May;28(5):620-625
pubmed: 27334865
J Clin Med. 2019 May 31;8(6):
pubmed: 31159286
Periodontol 2000. 2008;47:51-66
pubmed: 18412573
Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2019 Jan-Feb;16(1):18-23
pubmed: 30745914
J Craniofac Surg. 2015 May;26(3):741-4
pubmed: 25974783
J Clin Periodontol. 2009 Dec;36(12):1048-58
pubmed: 19929956
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Jun;19(3):440-446
pubmed: 28074591
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Jan/Feb;32(1):37-41
pubmed: 28095514
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Feb;26(2):191-6
pubmed: 24325598
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Aug;142(2):186-90
pubmed: 22858327