CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE STABILITY OF IMPLANTS PLACED AT DIFFERENT SUPRACRESTAL LEVELS

Volume: 50 Number: 3 October 3, 2016
EN

CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE STABILITY OF IMPLANTS PLACED AT DIFFERENT SUPRACRESTAL LEVELS

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability during healing and before loading of implants placed at two different supracrestal levels according to their collar texture.

Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included patients who received posterior implants with the same macro design. Implants with a machined collar were placed 0.3 mm above the crestal bone (M group), while those with a laser-microtextured collar were placed 1 mm above the crestal bone (L group). All implants healed in a single stage with healing abutments. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were determined using resonance frequency analysis immediately after implant placement during surgery and after 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after surgery. Other evaluated factors for stability included the implant diameter and length and the site of placement (maxilla or mandible).

Results: In total, 103 implants (47 L, 56 M) were evaluated. The median ISQ values at baseline and 1 week after placement were significantly higher for the M group than for the L group (p=0.006 and p=0.031, respectively). There were no differences at the subsequent observation points. The ISQ value was higher for wide-diameter than regular diameter (p=0.001) and mandibular implants than maxillary implants (p=0.001 at 0-8. weeks; p=0.012 at 12 weeks) at all observation points. When diameter data were neglected, the implant length did not influence the ISQ value at all observation points.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that submerging implant more inside bone may only influence primary stability. Moreover, the implant diameter and site of placement influence primary and secondary stability before loading, whereas the implant length does not when its diameter is not accounted for.

Keywords

References

  1. Sennerby L, Roos J. Surgical determinants of clinical success of osseointegrated oral implants: A review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11(5):408-420.
  2. Atsumi M, Park SH, Wang HL. Methods used to assess implant stability: Current status. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22(5):743-754.
  3. Meredith N. Assessment of implant stability as a prognostic determinant. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11(5):491-501.
  4. Meredith 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(3):261-267.
  5. Barewal RM, Oates TW, Meredith N, Cochran DL. Resonance frequency measurement of implant stability in vivo on implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18(5):641-651.
  6. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Linder E, Lang NP, Lindhe J. Early bone formation adjacent to rough and turned endosseous implant surfaces. An experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15(4):381-392.
  7. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA. Current interpretations of the osseointegrated response: Clinical significance. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6(2):95-105.
  8. Gultekin BA, Gultekin P, Leblebicioglu B, Basegmez C, Yalcin S. Clinical evaluation of marginal bone loss and stability in two types of submerged dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28(3):815-823.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

-

Journal Section

-

Authors

Alper Gültekin This is me

Ali Şirali This is me

Pınar Gültekin This is me

Publication Date

October 3, 2016

Submission Date

February 16, 2016

Acceptance Date

-

Published in Issue

Year 2016 Volume: 50 Number: 3

APA
Gültekin, A., Şirali, A., Gültekin, P., & Ersanlı, S. (2016). CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE STABILITY OF IMPLANTS PLACED AT DIFFERENT SUPRACRESTAL LEVELS. Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry, 50(3), 21-31. https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.96003
AMA
1.Gültekin A, Şirali A, Gültekin P, Ersanlı S. CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE STABILITY OF IMPLANTS PLACED AT DIFFERENT SUPRACRESTAL LEVELS. J Istanbul Univ Fac Dent. 2016;50(3):21-31. doi:10.17096/jiufd.96003
Chicago
Gültekin, Alper, Ali Şirali, Pınar Gültekin, and Selim Ersanlı. 2016. “CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE STABILITY OF IMPLANTS PLACED AT DIFFERENT SUPRACRESTAL LEVELS”. Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry 50 (3): 21-31. https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.96003.
EndNote
Gültekin A, Şirali A, Gültekin P, Ersanlı S (October 1, 2016) CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE STABILITY OF IMPLANTS PLACED AT DIFFERENT SUPRACRESTAL LEVELS. Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry 50 3 21–31.
IEEE
[1]A. Gültekin, A. Şirali, P. Gültekin, and S. Ersanlı, “CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE STABILITY OF IMPLANTS PLACED AT DIFFERENT SUPRACRESTAL LEVELS”, J Istanbul Univ Fac Dent, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 21–31, Oct. 2016, doi: 10.17096/jiufd.96003.
ISNAD
Gültekin, Alper - Şirali, Ali - Gültekin, Pınar - Ersanlı, Selim. “CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE STABILITY OF IMPLANTS PLACED AT DIFFERENT SUPRACRESTAL LEVELS”. Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry 50/3 (October 1, 2016): 21-31. https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.96003.
JAMA
1.Gültekin A, Şirali A, Gültekin P, Ersanlı S. CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE STABILITY OF IMPLANTS PLACED AT DIFFERENT SUPRACRESTAL LEVELS. J Istanbul Univ Fac Dent. 2016;50:21–31.
MLA
Gültekin, Alper, et al. “CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE STABILITY OF IMPLANTS PLACED AT DIFFERENT SUPRACRESTAL LEVELS”. Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry, vol. 50, no. 3, Oct. 2016, pp. 21-31, doi:10.17096/jiufd.96003.
Vancouver
1.Alper Gültekin, Ali Şirali, Pınar Gültekin, Selim Ersanlı. CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE STABILITY OF IMPLANTS PLACED AT DIFFERENT SUPRACRESTAL LEVELS. J Istanbul Univ Fac Dent. 2016 Oct. 1;50(3):21-3. doi:10.17096/jiufd.96003