Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 19, Issue 8, pp 1861–1866 | Cite as

Analysis of the influence of implant shape on primary stability using the correlation of multiple methods

  • Mariana Lima da Costa Valente
  • Denise Tornavoi de Castro
  • Antonio Carlos Shimano
  • César Penazzo Lepri
  • Andréa Cândido dos ReisEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of the shape of various implants and the density of substrate on primary stability using a combination of methods.

Materials and methods

Fifty-four Neodent® brand cylindrical and conical implants with different prosthetic platforms were used. Implants were inserted into a pork rib bone and polyurethane blocks. Primary stability was assessed by insertion torque (IT), resonance frequency analysis (RFA), and pullout strength. Screws were also analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before insertion and after removal to justify their use for inserting in different substrates.

Results

The conical cone morse implant had the highest average for all of the assays performed and was significantly different (p < 0.05) from the cylindrical implants for IT in the bone, pullout strength in the 40 per cubic foot (PCF) polyurethane, and the bone. The internal hex cylindrical implant had the lowest averages, which were significantly different (p < 0.05) from the conical implants for IT and RFA in the bone, pullout strength in the 40 PCF polyurethane, and the bone. The IT, RFA, and pullout strength assays were moderately correlated, and the photomicrographs did not reveal changes in the implants.

Conclusions

The analysis of different implants showed a better primary stability of tapered implants; the density of the substrate influences the primary stability and the 15 PCF polyurethane was not adequate to evaluate primary stability; correlation was obtained between the different methodologies of analysis of primary stability.

Clinical relevance

The study shows the influence of different implant macro-geometries and densities of substrates on primary stability.

Keywords

Dental implants Osseointegration Bone substitutes Torque Scanning electron microscopy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the foundation for supporting the research in the state of São Paulo (FAPESP—process number 2012/09208-0) and for funding the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict/s of interest related to the present study.

References

  1. 1.
    Rabel A, Köhler SG, Schmidt-Westhausen AM (2007) Clinical study on the primary stability of two dental implant systems with resonance frequency analysis. Clin Oral Investig 11:257–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang CL, Chen CS, Huang CH, Hsu ML (2012) Finite element analysis of the dental implant using a topology optimization method. Med Eng Phys 34:999–1008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desai SR, Desai MS, Katti G, Karthikeyan I (2012) Evaluation of design parameters of eight dental implant designs: a two-dimensional finite element analysis. Niger J Clin Pract 15:176–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim DS, Lee WJ, Choi SC, Lee SS, Heo MS, Huh KH, Kim TI, Yi WJ (2014) Comparison of dental implant stabilities by impact response and resonance frequencies using artificial bone. Med Eng Phys 36:715–720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mazzo CR, Reis AC, Shimano AC, Valente ML (2012) In vitro analysis of the influence of surface treatment of dental implants on primary stability. Braz Oral Res 26:313–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jung UW, Kim S, Lee IK, Kim MS, Lee JS, Kim HJ (2013) Secondary stability of microthickness hidroxyapatite-coated dental implants installed without primary stability in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:1169–1174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Premnath K, Sridevi J, Kalavathy N, Nagaranjani P, Sharmila MR (2013) Evaluation of stress distribution in bone of different densities using different implant designs: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 13:555–559PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bayarchimeg D, Namgoong H, Kim BK, Kim MD, Kim S, Kim TI, Seol YJ, Lee YM, Ku Y, Rhyu IC, Lee EH, Koo KT (2013) Evaluation of the correlation between insertion torque and primary stability of dental implants using a block bone test. J Periodontal Implant Sci 43:30–36PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pang X, Huang Y (2012) Physical properties of nano-HAs/ZrO2 coating on surface of titanium materials used in dental-implants and its biological compatibility. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 12:902–910CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Valente ML, Shimano AC, Mazzo CR, Lepri CP, dos Reis AC (2014) Analysis of the surface deformation of dental implants submitted to pullout and insertion test. Indian J Dent Res 25:32–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freitas AC Jr, Bonfante EA, Giro G, Janal MN, Coelho PG (2012) The effect of implant design on insertion torque and immediate micromotion. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:113–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elias CN, Rocha FA, Nascimento AL, Coelho PG (2012) Influence of implant shape, surface morphology, surgical technique and bone quality on the primary stability of dental implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 16:169–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Javed F, Ahmed HB, Crespi R, Romanos GE (2013) Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: factors of influence and evaluation. Interv Med Appl Sci 5:162–167PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jarmar T, Palmquist A, Brånemark R, Hermansson L, Engqvist H, Thomsen P (2008) Characterization of the surface properties of commercially available dental implants using scanning electron microscopy, focused ion beam, and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 10:11–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dos Santos MV, Elias CN, Cavalcanti Lima JH (2011) The effects of superficial roughness and design on the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 13:215–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu SW, Lee CC, Fu PY, Lin SC (2012) The effects of flute shape and tread profile on the insertion torque and primary stability of dental implants. Med Eng Phys 34:797–805CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shemtov-Yona K, Rittel D, Levin L, Machtei EE (2014) Effect of dental implant diameter on fatigue performance. Part I: mechanical behavior. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 16:172–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chowdhary R, Jimbo R, Thomsen C, Carlsson L, Wennerberg A (2013) Biomechanical evaluation of macro and micro designed screw-type implants: an insertion torque and removal torque study in rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res 24:342–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lekholm U, Zarb GA (1985) Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb G, Albrektsson T (eds). Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical Dentistry. Quintessence, pp 199–209.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trisi P, Berardi D, Paolantonio M, Spoto G, D’Addona A, Perfetti G (2013) Primary stability, insertion torque, and bone density of conical implants with internal hexagon: is there a relationship? J Craniofac Surg 24:841–844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herekar M, Sethi M, Ahmad T, Fernandes AS, Patil V, Kulkarni H (2014) A correlation between bone (B), insertion torque (IT), and implant stability (S): BITS score. J Prosthet Dent 112:805–810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim SJ, Kim MR, Rim JS, Chung SM, Shin SW (2010) Comparison of implant stability after different implant surface treatments in dog bone. J Appl Oral Sci 18:415–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Da Cunha H, Francischone CE, Filho HN, de Oliveira RC (2004) A comparison between cutting torque and resonance frequency in the assessment of primary stability and final torque capacity of standard and TiUnite single-tooth implants under immediate loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:578–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wegmann K, Gick S, Heidemann C, Pennig D, Neiss WF, Müller LP, Eysel P, Sobottke R (2013) Biomechanical evaluation of the primary stability of pedicle screws after augmentation with an innovative bone stabilizing system. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:1493–1499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Helgeson MD, Kang DG, Lehman RA Jr, Dmitriev AE, Luhmann SJ (2013) Tapping insertional torque allows prediction for better pedicle screw fixation and optimal screw size selection. Spine J 13:957–965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jimbo R, Tovar N, Anchieta RB, Machado LS, Marin C, Teixeira HS, Coelho PG (2014) The combined effects of undersized drilling and implant macrogeometry on bone healing around dental implants: an experimental study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43:1269–1275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariana Lima da Costa Valente
    • 1
  • Denise Tornavoi de Castro
    • 1
  • Antonio Carlos Shimano
    • 2
  • César Penazzo Lepri
    • 3
  • Andréa Cândido dos Reis
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão PretoUniversity of São PauloRibeirão PretoBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Biomechanics, Medicine, and Rehabilitation of Locomotive Apparatus, School of Medicine of Ribeirão PretoUniversity of São PauloRibeirão PretoBrazil
  3. 3.Department of BiomaterialsSchool of Dentistry of UberabaUberabaBrazil

Personalised recommendations