Effects of different undersizing site preparations on implant stability

As immediate loading protocols are becoming more frequent, the primary stability of implants has become an essential criterion for the osseointegration of dental implants. Based on this, the objective of this study was to understand the influence of different undersized surgical preparation sites on...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Authors: Ferreira de Lemos, Bernardo, Lopez-Jarana, Paula, Falcao-Costa, Carlos, RÍOS-CARRASCO, BLANCA, Gil, FJ, Ríos-Santos, José-Vicente, Herrero-Climent, Mariano
Format: article
Publication Date:2020
Country:España
Institution:Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya)
Repository:Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya
OAI Identifier:oai:recercat.cat:20.500.12328/1885
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/1885
https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238965
Access Level:Open access
Keyword:Implants dentals
Osteointegració
Implantes dentales
Huesos
Dental implants
Osteointegration
616.3
Description
Summary:As immediate loading protocols are becoming more frequent, the primary stability of implants has become an essential criterion for the osseointegration of dental implants. Based on this, the objective of this study was to understand the influence of different undersized surgical preparation sites on the insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ). Four different site-preparation protocols were performed on fresh humid type III bovine bone: one control, the standard protocol recommended by the manufacturer (P1), and three variations of undersized techniques (P2, P3 and P4). The implant used was VEGA by Klockner Implant System. The sample size was n = 40 for each of the four groups. A torquemeter was used to measure the IT, and the ISQ was measured with a Penguin RFA. Both variables showed a tendency to increase as the preparation technique was reduced, although not all the values were statistically significant (p < 0.05) when comparing with the standard preparation. The preparations without a cortical drill, P2 and P4, showed better results than those with a cortical drill. Given the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that reducing the implant preparation can increase both the IT and ISQ. Removing the cortical drill is an effective method for increasing implant stability, although it should be used carefully.