Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Feb 2017

Stability Development of Immediately Loaded Hybrid Self-Tapping Implants Inserted in the Posterior Maxilla: 1-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

MSc,
DDS,
MChD,
MChD, and
PhD
Page Range: 33 – 38
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00143
Save
Download PDF

The objective of the present study was to elucidate stability development of immediately loaded hybrid self-tapping implants inserted in the posterior maxilla. Forty-eight hybrid self-tapping implants with a chemically modified surface (∅︀4.1; length: 8 mm) were inserted bilaterally in the maxillary first and second premolar and first molar sites of 8 patients. In each patient, both sides of the maxilla were assigned randomly to either immediate (IL) or early (EL) loading group. Implant stability was evaluated by means of resonance frequency analysis immediately after implant placement and after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. High values of primary stability were found in both groups (71.91 ± 6.52 implant stability quotient [ISQ] in IL group; 73.87 ± 6.5 ISQ in EL group), with significant differences between the groups at the different time points. Initial decrease in stability was observed between the first and fifth weeks in the IL group and between the first and third weeks for the EL group. In the IL group 1 implant was removed after 3 weeks due to lack of stability. Early results of this study showed the ability of hybrid self-tapping dental implants with a chemically modified surface to achieve sufficient primary stability and to maintain high values of secondary implant stability in bone type 3 and 4, even when loaded immediately. Minimal alterations in stability were observed for both investigated groups, but the EL group showed faster recovery after an initial drop in stability.

<bold>
  <sc>Figure 1</sc>
</bold>
Figure 1

Occlusal view of inserted implants.


<bold>
  <sc>Figure 2</sc>
</bold>
Figure 2

Implant stability changes (ISQ) in IL group during 52 weeks observation period. Line represents mean; error bars represent standard deviation. Crosses indicate a statistically significant difference in comparison with primary stability values (+P = .017, ++P = .012). Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between 2 consecutive weeks (*P = .011, **P = .012, ***P = .034, ****P = .012).


<bold>
  <sc>Figure 3</sc>
</bold>
Figure 3

Implant stability changes (ISQ) in EL group during 52 weeks observation period. Line represents mean; error bars represent standard deviation. Crosses indicate a statistically significant difference in comparison with primary stability values (+P = .018, ++P = .012, +++P = .011, ++++P = .012). Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between 2 consecutive weeks (*P =.012, **P = .012, ***P = .012, ****P = .011, *****P = .018).


<bold>
  <sc>Figure 4</sc>
</bold>
Figure 4

Differences in implant stability change (%) between investigated groups over 52 weeks observation period. Asterisks represent significant differences between groups (*IL vs EL, P < .05: fourth week, P = .012; fifth week, P = .025; 12th week, P = .036; 26th week, P = .049; 52nd week, P = .017).


Contributor Notes

Corresponding author, e-mail: todent@yahoo.com
  • Download PDF