Results : intraosseous stability and healing period for dental implants (1)
Results
Study overview
A total of 33 implant bodies (8 in the maxilla, 25 in the mandible) were inserted into the 27 participants (11 men, 16 women), with the average age of 54.6 ± 12.2 years (range, 32–78 years). The average IT value was 32.7 ± 9.2 N cm (32.5 ± 11.6 N cm in the maxilla, 32.8 ± 8.5 N cm in the mandible). The diameter of the implant body was 4.4 mm in 20 (60.6%) and 3.8 mm in 13 (39.4%), and the length of the implant body was 8.0 mm in 6 (18.2%), 10.0 mm in 19 (57.6%), and 12.0 mm in 8 (24.2%) (Table 1).
The measurement results of IT and ISQ are shown in Table 2. Due to the identification of mobility at 4 weeks postoperatively, No. 19 implant body (diameter, 4.4 mm; length, 12.0 mm) that had been inserted at the first molar position in the right mandible of a 32-year-old male patient was excluded from the evaluation. As a result, this study evaluated the 32 implant bodies (8 in the maxilla, 24 in the mandible) inserted into 26 participants. The survival rate of the implant bodies at the end of this study was 97% (maxilla, 100%; mandible, 96%).
Evaluation of ISQ and IT
The average ISQ values of all tested implant bodies increased through this study; moreover, all tested implant bodies indicated 60 or more ISQ value 6 weeks after the implant insertion. A significant difference was observed at 0 and ≥ 6 weeks (P < 0.01) (Fig. 3). No significant difference of average ISQ was found on the maxilla and mandible.
The inserted implant bodies were classified by IT value as the low IT group (< 30 N cm), the medium IT group (30–40 N cm), and the high IT group (≥ 40 N cm). Nine specimens were classified as the low IT group (3 in the maxilla, 6 in the mandible), 12 as the medium IT group (1 in the maxilla, 11 in the mandible), and 11 as the high IT group (4 in the maxilla, 7 in the mandible) (Fig. 4). There was no difference between the maxilla and the mandible in the average value of the IT (maxilla 32.5 ± 11.6 N cm, mandible 32.9 ± 8.7 N cm).
Serial posts:
- Prospective multicenter non-randomized controlled study on intraosseous stability and healing period for dental implants in the posterior region
- Background : Prospective multicenter non-randomized controlled study on intraosseous stability and healing period for dental implants
- Methods : Prospective multicenter non-randomized controlled study on intraosseous stability and healing period for dental implants (1)
- Results : intraosseous stability and healing period for dental implants (1)
- Methods : Prospective multicenter non-randomized controlled study on intraosseous stability and healing period for dental implants (2)
- Results : intraosseous stability and healing period for dental implants (2)
- Discussion : intraosseous stability and healing period for dental implants (1)
- Discussion : intraosseous stability and healing period for dental implants (2)
- Discussion : intraosseous stability and healing period for dental implants (3)
- Discussion : intraosseous stability and healing period for dental implants (4)
- Discussion : intraosseous stability and healing period for dental implants (5)
- Discussion : intraosseous stability and healing period for dental implants (6)
- Figure 1. Genesio® Plus implant with Aanchor surface
- Figure 2. The measurement of the voxel values
- Figure 3. The evaluation of the average ISQ. Time-lapse migration of average ISQ. Average ISQ of all specimens increased in a time-dependent manner (results indicated by a line). A significant difference was observed by 6 weeks after surgery
- Figure 4. The classification of the insertion torque. All specimens classified into three groups according to insertion torque. Criteria for the classification are shown in the figure and in the “Methods” section
- Figure 5. The comparison of ISQ values by the insertion torque
- Figure 6. The relationship between ISQ and insertion torque
- Figure 7. The average voxel value between the maxilla and mandible
- Figure 8. The relationship between average voxel value and insertion torque
- Figure 9. The comparison of two groups at average voxel values for each part
- Table 1 Treatment area and size of implant body
- Table 2 Result of IT and ISQ