A Comparison of Conical and Cylindrical Implants Inserted in an In Vitro Post-Extraction Model Using Low-Density Polyurethane Foam Blocks.

artificial bone conical implants cylindrical implants dental implants implant stability quotient insertion torque polyurethane post-extraction sites removal torque

Journal

Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1996-1944
Titre abrégé: Materials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555929

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 Jul 2023
Historique:
received: 08 06 2023
revised: 11 07 2023
accepted: 15 07 2023
medline: 29 7 2023
pubmed: 29 7 2023
entrez: 29 7 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Combining tooth extraction and implant placement reduces the number of surgical procedures that a patient must undergo. Thus, the present study aimed to compare the stability of two types of conical implants (TAC and INTRALOCK) and another cylindrical one (CYROTH), inserted with a range of angulation of 15-20 degrees in low-density polyurethane blocks (10 and 20 pounds per cubic foot, PCF) with or without a cortical lamina (30 PCF), which potentially mimicked the post-extraction in vivo condition. For this purpose, a total of 120 polyurethane sites were prepared (10 for each implant and condition) and the Insertion Torque (IT), Removal Torque (RT), and Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) were measured, following a Three-Way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's post hoc test for the statistical analysis of data. The IT and RT values registered for all implant types were directly proportional to the polyurethane density. The highest IT was registered by INTRALOCK implants in the highest-density block (32.44 ± 3.28 Ncm). In contrast, the highest RFA, a well-known index of Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ), was shown by TAC implants in all clinical situations (up to 63 ISQ in the 20 PCF block without the cortical sheet), especially in lower-density blocks. Although more pre-clinical and clinical studies are required, these results show a better primary stability of TAC conical implants in all tested densities of this post-extraction model, with a higher ISQ, despite their IT.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37512339
pii: ma16145064
doi: 10.3390/ma16145064
pmc: PMC10384017
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):84-102
pubmed: 28000278
Quintessence Int. 2017;48(3):219-224
pubmed: 28168242
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Feb;25(2):e109-13
pubmed: 23167282
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Jun;29(6):649-655
pubmed: 26916451
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996 Sep;7(3):261-7
pubmed: 9151590
J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2019 Feb 26;49(1):39-46
pubmed: 30847255
J Oral Implantol. 2016 Aug;42(4):321-5
pubmed: 26938712
Implant Dent. 2017 Apr;26(2):250-255
pubmed: 27922455
J Biomech Eng. 2016 Oct 1;138(10):
pubmed: 27536905
J Clin Med. 2019 May 31;8(6):
pubmed: 31159286
Implant Dent. 2015 Feb;24(1):92-5
pubmed: 25379664
Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):73-83
pubmed: 28000281
Quintessenz. 1976 Jun;27(6):17 - 23
pubmed: 802007
Adv Dent Res. 2016 Mar;28(1):4-9
pubmed: 26927482
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2021 Mar-Apr;41(2):195-204
pubmed: 33819323
Dent J (Basel). 2020 Jun 04;8(2):
pubmed: 32512762
Periodontol 2000. 2019 Feb;79(1):168-177
pubmed: 30892762
J Funct Biomater. 2022 Aug 18;13(3):
pubmed: 35997459
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Feb;20(1):26-33
pubmed: 29194944
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008 Oct 09;9:137
pubmed: 18844988
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Jun;29(6):656-662
pubmed: 26957224
J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2022 Sep;22(3):101734
pubmed: 36162892
J Craniofac Surg. 2016 Jul;27(5):1220-7
pubmed: 27391493
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020 Jun;22(3):373-379
pubmed: 32374483
J Biomech. 2021 Oct 11;127:110696
pubmed: 34419826
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2010 May;21(5):1453-61
pubmed: 20162325
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2011 Sep;13(3):215-23
pubmed: 19744197
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017 Aug;72:49-51
pubmed: 28448921
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Sep;46(9):1162-1177
pubmed: 28478869
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Aug;14(4):565-74
pubmed: 20662861

Auteurs

Luca Comuzzi (L)

Independent Researcher, San Vendemiano-Conegliano, 31020 Treviso, Italy.

Margherita Tumedei (M)

Department of Medical, Surgical, and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy.
Maxillo-Facial Surgery and Dental Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy.

Natalia Di Pietro (N)

Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, "G. D'Annunzio" University of Chieti-Pescara, 66013 Chieti, Italy.
Center for Advanced Studies and Technology-CAST, "G. D'Annunzio" University of Chieti-Pescara, 66013 Chieti, Italy.

Tea Romasco (T)

Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, "G. D'Annunzio" University of Chieti-Pescara, 66013 Chieti, Italy.
Center for Advanced Studies and Technology-CAST, "G. D'Annunzio" University of Chieti-Pescara, 66013 Chieti, Italy.

Hamid Heydari Sheikh Hossein (H)

Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, "G. D'Annunzio" University of Chieti-Pescara, 66013 Chieti, Italy.
Center for Advanced Studies and Technology-CAST, "G. D'Annunzio" University of Chieti-Pescara, 66013 Chieti, Italy.
Villa Serena Foundation for Research, Via Leonardo Petruzzi 42, 65013 Città Sant'Angelo, Italy.

Lorenzo Montesani (L)

Independent Researcher, 00187 Rome, Italy.

Francesco Inchingolo (F)

Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", 70121 Bari, Italy.

Adriano Piattelli (A)

School of Dentistry, Saint Camillus International University of Health and Medical Sciences, 00131 Rome, Italy.
Facultad de Medicina, UCAM Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia, 30107 Murcia, Spain.

Ugo Covani (U)

Department of Stomatology, Tuscan Stomatologic Institute, Foundation for Dental Clinic, Research and Continuing Education, 55041 Camaiore, Italy.

Classifications MeSH