Page 39 - SPEMD_58-2

rev port estomatol med dent cir maxilofac . 2017;58(2):91-96 95

ly to the implant or to the healing abutments of different
Discussion
heights.
In the present study, the implant stability was analyzed by In the standard group, although statistically significant
RFA with the Osstell ISQ when the Smartpeg was screwed to differences were found in between some groups, that differ-
the implant and to the healing abutments of different heights. ences were between 2-3 points of ISQ. Several studies provide
19
The bone in which the implants were place was type II . The good indications that the acceptable stability range lies be-
mean ISQ in our study was 76.7 ± 5.5. These results are similar tween 55 and 85 ISQ, with an average ISQ level of 70. 9,24 All of
to those of other trials examining the ISQ in cow ribs (also ISQ values in the standard group are over 78, belonging to the
20
bone quality type II). In 2009, other authors found a mean group of high stability.
ISQ of 70.86 ± 3.4 and 70 ± 3.8 when placing two different
implants (3.7 x 10 mm Zimmer Dental and 4x 10 mm Nobel
®
®
Biocare ) in cow ribs with bone quality type II-III. In 2014, a Conclusions
21
research was published that analyzed the ISQ of three types
of implants (two types of straight-screw type implants one It may be concluded from the present investigation that sim-
with polished collar and the other one without and one ta- ilar ISQ values could be obtained measuring the RFA with the
pered-screw type implant) placed in cow ribs, bone quality transducer screwed directly to the implant or to healing abut-
type III. The implants were Straumann, length 10 mm and ments of different heights, in an accurate and reproducible
diameter 3.3 mm. The mean ISQ values were 75.02 ± 3.65, way.
75.98 ± 3.00 and 79.83 ± 1.85, respectively. The slight differenc-
es between the results of those trials and the present one
could be due to the different macro design of the implants Ethical disclosures
used. The literature agrees that the most appropriate design
is endosseous screw-shaped implants. In 1999, it was found Protection of human and animal subjects. The authors declare
that the implants that achieved the higher primary stability that no experiments were performed on humans or animals for
22
were the 8 mm implants. These implants were all placed in this study.
posterior lower jaw, where type II bone quality was found in Condentiality of data. The authors declare that no patient
all cases.
The data presented in Table 1 showed that the ISQ from data appear in this article.
the prototype group was lower. It could be attributed to the Right to privacy and informed consent. The authors declare
design of the prototype implant. The characteristic added to that no patient data appear in this article.
the prototype group made the implant insertion with less fric-
tion. So, if there were less friction between the implant and
the bone, the primary stability would be lower. Conflicts of interest
The results of this trial only showed statistically signifi-
cant differences in the standard group. In that group the dif- The authors have no conficts of interest to declare.
ferences were between measuring the stability on the Smart-
peg screwed directly to the implant and screwed to the references
different healing abutments. But in this study the ISQ values
registered over the Smartpeg attached to the abutment were 1. Meredith N, Book K, Friberg B, Jemt T, Sennerby L. Resonance
higher than the ones registered over the transducer screwed Frecuency measurements of implant stability in vivo. A
directly to the implant. These results are in disagreement with cross- sectional and longitudinal study of the resonance
the previous published literature. In previous investigations a frecuency measurements on implants in the edentulous and
partially dentate maxilla. Clin Oral Impl Res. 1997;8:226-33.
strong correlation (r = 0.94, p < 0.01) was observed between 2. Glauser R, Sennerby L, Meredith N, Rée A, Lundgren A,
the registered frequency and the height of implantation fix- Gottlow J et al. Resonance frequency analysis of implants
ture exposed. According to other authors the stiffness of the subjected to immediate or early functional occlusal loading.
3
implant/tissue interface, the distance from the transducer to Successful vs. failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res.
the first bone contact, the abutment length and the marginal 2004;15:428-34.
bone resorption have influence in the RFA value. 3,23 Our re- 3. Meredith N, Alleyne D, Cawley P. Quantitative determination of
sults showed that, despite increasing the bone-transducer the stability of the implant-tissue interface using resonance
frequency analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996;7:261-7.
distance of 1.8 mm, the ISQ values not decrease but increase. 4. Garg AK. Osstell Mentor: measuring dental implant stability
To our knowledge, we dont know if these results may have at placement, before loading, and after loading. Dent
clinical repercussions. More studies are needed to clarify if Implantol Update. 2007;18:49-53.
the bone crest-transducer distance had influence in the ISQ 5. Ersanli S, Karabuda C, Beck F, Leblebicioglu B. Resonance
values. frequency analysis of one-stage dental implant stability during
In the prototype group statistically significant differenc- the osseointegration period. J Periodontol 2005;76:1066-71.
es were not found, probably due to the new design of the 6. OSullivan D, Sennerby L, Jagger D, Meredith N. A comparison
of two methods of enhancing implant primary stability. Clin
threads that block the influence of the bone crest-transduc- Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004;6:48-57.
er distance. It could be suggested that in the prototype group 7. Herrero-Climent M, Santos-García R, Jaramillo-Santos R, et al.
the RFA could be analyzed with the Smartpeg screwed direct- Assessment of Osstell ISQs reliability for implant stability