Effect of macro-design in the primary stability of short and extra-short implants using resonance frequency analysis. An ex vivo study

Influence of Implant Macro-Design, -Length, and -Diameter on Primary Implant Stability Depending on Different Bone Qualities Using Standard Drilling Protocols-An In Vitro Analysis

(1) Background: Primary implant stability is vital for successful implant therapy. This study explores the influence of implant shape, length, and diameter on primary stability in different bone qualities. (2) Methods: Three implant systems (two parallel-walled and one tapered) with various lengths and diameters were inserted into polyurethane foam blocks of different densities (35, 25, 15, and 10 PCF) using standard drilling protocols. Primary stability was assessed through insertion torque (IT) and resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Optimal ranges were defined for IT (25 to 50 Ncm) and RFA (ISQ 60 to 80). A comparison of implant groups was conducted to determine adherence to the optimal ranges. (3) Results: Implant macro-design, -length, and -diameter and bone block density significantly influenced IT and RFA. Optimal IT was observed in 8/40 and 9/40 groups for the parallel-walled implants, while the tapered implant achieved optimal IT in 13/40 groups (within a 25-50 Ncm range). Implant diameter strongly impacted primary stability, with sufficient stability achieved in only one-third of cases despite the tapered implant's superiority. (4) Conclusions: The findings highlight the need to adapt the drilling protocol based on diverse bone qualities in clinical practice. Further investigations should explore the impact of these adapted protocols on implant outcomes.

Primary Implant Stability Analysis of Different Dental Implant Connections and Designs-An In Vitro Comparative Study

Primary implant stability can be evaluated at the time of placement by measuring the insertion torque (IT). However, another method to monitor implant stability over time is resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Our aim was to examine the effect of bone type, implant design, and implant length on implant primary stability as measured by IT and two RFA devices (Osstell and Penguin) in an in vitro model. Ninety-six implants were inserted by a surgical motor in an artificial bone material, resembling soft and dense bone. Two different implant designs-conical connection (CC) and internal hex (IH), with lengths of 13 and 8 mm, were compared. The results indicate that the primary stability as measured by RFA and IT is significantly increased by the quality of bone (dense bone), and implant length and design, where the influence of dense bone is similar to that of CC design. Both the Osstell and Penguin devices recorded higher primary implant stability for long implants in dense bone, favoring the CC over the IH implant design. The CC implant design may compensate for the low stability expected in soft bone, and dense bone may compensate for short implant length if required by the anatomical bone conditions.

Influence of Inter-Radicular Septal Bone Quantity in Primary Stability of Immediate Molar Implants with Different Length and Diameter Placed in Mandibular Region. A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Simulated Implant Study

AIM

The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of length and width of implant on primary stability in immediate implants in mandibular first molar.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was carried out on 40 cone-beam computed tomography scans selected with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. According to the diameter and length of implants, they were divided into nine groups (G1 to G9). The virtual implants of different diameters and length were placed in mandibular first molar and measurements were done for peri-implant horizontal and vertical gap defect, peri-implant interradicular bone support and apical bone support for all the groups.

RESULTS

The study groups Diameter, (D-7 mm) showed least horizontal gap defect (Buccal-1.30 ± 0.56 mm, lingual-1.30 ± 0.56 mm, mesial-1.20 ± 0.51 mm, and distal-1.05 ± 0.59 mm) as compared to regular implant diameter (D-4.7) groups (Buccal-2.35 ± 0.483 mm, lingual-2.10 mm ± 0.44 mm, mesial-2.30 ± 0.64 mm, and distal-2.25 ± 0.43 mm). The unsupported Vertical implant gap defect at the coronal part of the socket was 2.80 mm ± 0.83 mm for all groups in both horizontal and vertical direction. The vertical peri-implant interradicular bone support showed increased bone support with increase in implant length (L). The buccal and lingual inter-radicular bone-support was least for Length (L-8.5 mm), moderate for L-11.5 mm, and highest for L-13.5 mm groups, respectively. The mesial inter-radicular bone support was least for G4G7, moderate for G1G2G5G8, and maximum for G3G6G9 groups. Similarly, the distal inter-radicular bone support was least for G4G7, moderate for G1G5G8, and maximum for G2G3G6G9 groups, respectively. There was no apical bone support in L-8.5 mm group as the tip of implant was 3.5-4 mm within the socket tip. Whereas, L-11.5 mm had decent (0.9-1 mm) and L-13.5 mm had Good (1.35-1.95 mm) apical bone support as the implant tip was beyond the socket tip.

CONCLUSION

All the groups showed good interradicular bone support on buccal and lingual surfaces. Regular width implants with longer length showed satisfactory interradicular bone support on mesial and distal surfaces. Longer implants showed good apical bone support in all the four surfaces and hence good apical primary stability expected.

Does the Modification of the Apical Geometry of a Dental Implant Affect Its Primary Stability? A Comparative Ex Vivo Study

(1) Background: Primary stability—one fundamental criterion for the success of dental implants—is influenced by implant geometry even if the effect of apical shape modifications on implant primary stability has not yet been examined. Therefore, the aim of the ex vivo study was to compare primary stability of implants differing in apically located screw threads (J-line) or a flat tip (K-line) only. (2) Methods: 28 implants of each group of the same diameter (4.3 mm) were randomly inserted into porcine bone blocks. The first group (9, 11 and 13 mm) was inserted into “hard”, the second (11 mm) into “soft” bone, here using a normal and an undersized drilling protocol. Insertion torque (Ncm), Periotest^® value, resonance frequency (implant stability coefficient, ISQ) and push-out force (N) were measured. (3) Results: In “hard” bone, primary stability increased with increasing length in both groups but it was significantly higher in J-line (p < 0.03). An undersized preparation of the implant bed in “soft” bone resulted in a significant increase in primary stability in both groups. Here, J-line also showed a significantly increased primary stability when compared to equally prepared K-line (insertion torque: 37 Ncm vs. 26 Ncm; Periotest^®: −6.5 vs. −4.3; push-out force: 365 N vs. 329 N; p < 0.05 each). (4) Conclusions: Primary stability is significantly higher with increasing implant length and apically located screw threads as well as with undersized drilling protocols. When preparing the implant site and subsequently selecting the implant system, modifying factors such as implant geometry (also at the tip) should be taken into account.