Daniel Greenberg, Nathan Estrin, Rafael Delgado-Ruiz, Georgios E Romanos
{"title":"Effect of Primary Stability on Short vs. Conventional -Implants with Reverse Concave Neck.","authors":"Daniel Greenberg, Nathan Estrin, Rafael Delgado-Ruiz, Georgios E Romanos","doi":"10.11607/jomi.11263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Vertical ridge augmentation has less long-term predictability than horizontal ridge augmentation due to common complications with vertical Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), including early exposure of the barrier membrane and decreased bone stability.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the primary stability of short implants versus conventional implants, in vitro.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two groups of implants with reverse concave neck and neck micro threads (ULT, Ditron Dental, CA) were studied; short implants (Ø 6.0mm x 7mm) and conventional implant (Ø 3.75mm x 10mm). A total of 80 implants were placed by the same calibrated clinician at 800RPM, 40 short implants and 40 conventional implants. Each implant was placed in dense (type II) and soft (type IV) bone. Implant primary stability was recorded using insertion torque (IT), Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA), and Periotest values. Statistical comparison with Analysis of Variance were completed to compare differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The comparison of IT, RFA and Periotest of the two groups of implants showed statistical significance (P<0.0001) favoring the short implants (Ø 6.0mm x 7mm) in both the soft and dense bone qualities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, short implants with wide diameter seem to have a higher level of implant stability compared to narrow implants with conventional length.</p>","PeriodicalId":94230,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.11263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Vertical ridge augmentation has less long-term predictability than horizontal ridge augmentation due to common complications with vertical Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), including early exposure of the barrier membrane and decreased bone stability.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the primary stability of short implants versus conventional implants, in vitro.
Methods: Two groups of implants with reverse concave neck and neck micro threads (ULT, Ditron Dental, CA) were studied; short implants (Ø 6.0mm x 7mm) and conventional implant (Ø 3.75mm x 10mm). A total of 80 implants were placed by the same calibrated clinician at 800RPM, 40 short implants and 40 conventional implants. Each implant was placed in dense (type II) and soft (type IV) bone. Implant primary stability was recorded using insertion torque (IT), Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA), and Periotest values. Statistical comparison with Analysis of Variance were completed to compare differences between groups.
Results: The comparison of IT, RFA and Periotest of the two groups of implants showed statistical significance (P<0.0001) favoring the short implants (Ø 6.0mm x 7mm) in both the soft and dense bone qualities.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, short implants with wide diameter seem to have a higher level of implant stability compared to narrow implants with conventional length.
由于垂直引导骨再生(GBR)的常见并发症,包括早期暴露屏障膜和降低骨稳定性,垂直嵴增强术的长期可预测性不如水平嵴增强术。目的:本研究的目的是评估短种植体与常规种植体在体外的初步稳定性。方法:对两组反向凹颈和颈微螺纹种植体(ULT, Ditron Dental, CA)进行研究;短种植体(Ø 6.0mm x 7mm)和常规种植体(Ø 3.75mm x 10mm)。由同一位校准的临床医生以800RPM的速度放置80个种植体,40个短种植体和40个常规种植体。每个种植体放置在致密(II型)和软(IV型)骨中。通过插入扭矩(IT)、共振频率分析(RFA)和骨膜测试值记录种植体的初级稳定性。采用方差分析进行统计学比较,比较组间差异。结果:两组种植体的IT、RFA和Periotest比较均有统计学意义(p)。结论:在本研究的局限性内,较短、直径较宽的种植体比常规长度较窄的种植体具有更高的种植体稳定性。