Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Dec 2016

In Vitro Evaluation of the Primary Stability of Short and Conventional Implants

DSc, PhD,
MSc,
DSc,
DSc, and
DSc
Page Range: 458 – 463
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00094
Save
Download PDF

The objective of this study was to evaluate the primary stability of short and conventional dental implants with different platform types at different site densities in vitro. One hundred twenty implants were placed in polyurethane blocks that simulate different bone densities (bone types I and IV). The implants were divided into 10 groups, with 12 implants each according to the type of prosthetic connections (external hexagon, EH; morse taper, MT) and size of the implants (conventional: 4 × 10 mm; short: 5 × 5, 5.5 × 5, 5 × 6, and 5.5 × 6 mm). Insertion torque and resonance frequency analyses were performed to evaluate the primary stability. The Kruskal-Wallis test complemented by Dunn's test and the Mann-Whitney test were used for statistical analysis. These tests were applied at the confidence level of 95% (P < .05). The implants installed in blocks with density type IV exhibited reduced insertion torque compared with implants placed in blocks with density type I. Short implants with EH exhibited increased insertion torque compared with short implants with MT in blocks with bone density type I. In general, implants installed in blocks with density type I exhibited greater primary stability. The short implants with EH with a 5.5-mm diameter and the short implants with MT with a 5-mm diameter exhibited reduced primary stability. No differences between short and conventional implants were noted. Short implants have primary stability and insertion torque at least equivalent to conventional implants irrespective of the platform type and density of the site.

<bold>
  <sc>Figure</sc>
</bold>
Figure

(a) The polyurethane block with a density similar to type I human bone. (b) The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of the block with density similar to type I human bone. Note that this block has a more massive structure. (c) The polyurethane block with a density similar to type IV human bone. (d) The SEM image of the block with density similar to type IV human bone. Note that this block has a more porosity structure. (e) Implants in the final position into the polyurethane blocks. The external hexagon implants were placed at the level of the blocks, whereas the morse taper implants were installed 2 mm below the end of the blocks.


Contributor Notes

Corresponding author, e-mail: elciojr@foar.unesp.br
  • Download PDF