An In Vitro Analysis on Polyurethane Foam Blocks of the Insertion Torque (IT) Values, Removal Torque Values (RTVs), and Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) Values in Tapered and Cylindrical Implants.
artificial bone
dental implant
endosseous implants
polyurethane study
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:
01 09 2021
01 09 2021
Historique:
received:
03
08
2021
revised:
28
08
2021
accepted:
30
08
2021
entrez:
10
9
2021
pubmed:
11
9
2021
medline:
28
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several different dental implant microgeometries have been investigated in the literature for use in low-density bone sites. The polyurethane solid rigid blocks represent an optimal in vitro study model for dental implants, because their composition is characterized by symmetrical linear chains of monomers of hexa-methylene sequences producing a self-polymerization process. The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the primary stability of cylindrical and tapered implants positioned into low-density polyurethane solid rigid blocks. Two different macrogeometries, cylindrical (4 mm diameter and 10 mm length) and tapered dental implants (4.20 mm diameter and 10 mm length), were investigated in the present study. The implants were inserted into 10 PCF and 20 PCF polyurethane blocks, with and without an additional cortical layer. The insertion torque (IT) values, the removal torque values (RTVs), and the resonance frequency analysis (RFA) values were measured and recorded. A total of 80 sites were tested, and a significant increased primary stability (PS) was detected in favour of tapered dental implants when compared to cylindrical implants in all experimental conditions ( Both implants showed sufficient primary stability in poor density substrates, while, on the other hand, the tapered microgeometry showed characteristics that could also lead to clinical application in low-density posterior maxillary sites, even with a drastically decreased bone cortical component.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Several different dental implant microgeometries have been investigated in the literature for use in low-density bone sites. The polyurethane solid rigid blocks represent an optimal in vitro study model for dental implants, because their composition is characterized by symmetrical linear chains of monomers of hexa-methylene sequences producing a self-polymerization process. The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the primary stability of cylindrical and tapered implants positioned into low-density polyurethane solid rigid blocks.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two different macrogeometries, cylindrical (4 mm diameter and 10 mm length) and tapered dental implants (4.20 mm diameter and 10 mm length), were investigated in the present study. The implants were inserted into 10 PCF and 20 PCF polyurethane blocks, with and without an additional cortical layer. The insertion torque (IT) values, the removal torque values (RTVs), and the resonance frequency analysis (RFA) values were measured and recorded.
RESULTS
A total of 80 sites were tested, and a significant increased primary stability (PS) was detected in favour of tapered dental implants when compared to cylindrical implants in all experimental conditions (
CONCLUSIONS
Both implants showed sufficient primary stability in poor density substrates, while, on the other hand, the tapered microgeometry showed characteristics that could also lead to clinical application in low-density posterior maxillary sites, even with a drastically decreased bone cortical component.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34501824
pii: ijerph18179238
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18179238
pmc: PMC8431239
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Polyurethanes
0
polyurethane foam
9009-54-5
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Polymers (Basel). 2019 Jun 10;11(6):
pubmed: 31185590
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014 Jun;34:1-7
pubmed: 24548948
Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Mar;25(1):55-64
pubmed: 32725574
Front Physiol. 2017 Aug 03;8:565
pubmed: 28824459
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Oct;17(5):950-6
pubmed: 24506148
Implant Dent. 2017 Apr;26(2):250-255
pubmed: 27922455
Dent J (Basel). 2020 Feb 21;8(1):
pubmed: 32098046
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Jul;23(7):767-74
pubmed: 21635560
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Apr 11;17(8):
pubmed: 32290361
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2017 Jul 1;22(4):e473-e477
pubmed: 28578374
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020 Mar-Apr;34(2):739-745
pubmed: 32475099
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020 Nov/Dec;40(6):e211-e227
pubmed: 33151185
J Appl Oral Sci. 2011 Jan-Feb;19(1):47-51
pubmed: 21437469
Eur J Orthod. 2008 Dec;30(6):552-7
pubmed: 19054812
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31 Suppl:s43-99
pubmed: 27228254
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Dec;44(12):1514-20
pubmed: 26362488
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Nov;54(9):980-986
pubmed: 27461557
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jun 20;17(12):
pubmed: 32575702
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Sep-Oct;26(5):1051-6
pubmed: 22010089
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Aug;20(4):634-645
pubmed: 29761846
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Jun;29(6):649-655
pubmed: 26916451
J Craniofac Surg. 2015 Jul;26(5):e374-7
pubmed: 26167993
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 May 16;17(10):
pubmed: 32429405
Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Mar;25(1):65-73
pubmed: 32803459
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Jul/Aug;33(4):824-830
pubmed: 30024998
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Jan;46(1):116-128
pubmed: 27639295
Biomed Res Int. 2019 Sep 29;2019:8483658
pubmed: 31662998
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Apr;20(2):151-159
pubmed: 29164788
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2021 Jan;24(1):14-20
pubmed: 32840129
Adv Dent Res. 2016 Mar;28(1):4-9
pubmed: 26927482
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Aug;19(4):733-741
pubmed: 28557376
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 21;17(6):
pubmed: 32245226
Implant Dent. 2016 Dec;25(6):775-782
pubmed: 27540846
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Feb;21(2):129-36
pubmed: 19709058