Page 15 - SPEMD_62-1

Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia,
Medicina Dentária e Cirurgia Maxilofacial

rev port estomatol med dent cir maxilofac. 2021;62(1):9-15

Original Research

Influence of implant design, length, diameter,
and anatomic region on implant stability:

a randomized clinical trial

a
c,e
André Moreira a,b,d, *, José Rosa , Filipe Freitas a,b,d , Helena Francisco b,d , Henrique Luís ,
João Caramês b,d
a Specialization in Implantology, Faculdade de Medicina Dentária da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
b Department of Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, Faculdade de Medicina Dentária da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
c Department of Biostatistics, Faculdade de Medicina Dentária da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
d Implantology Institute, Lisbon, Portugal
e Center for Innovative Care and Health Technology (ciTechcare), Polytechnic of Leiria, Leiria, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objectives: To evaluate the influence of implant geometry and anatomical region on implant
Received 22 April 2020 stability.
Accepted 29 November 2020 Methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 45 patients, in whom a
Available online 4 January 2021 total of 79 implants were placed: 40 MIS C1 Implants and 39 MIS Seven Implants. The implant
stability quotient was measured using resonance frequency analysis immediately after im-
Keywords: plant placement and 8 weeks later with an Osstell Mentor device.
Implant design Results: 76 implants were analyzed. The implant stability quotient was statistically signifi-
Implant diameter cantly higher for secondary stability than primary stability (68.7±8,6 vs. 65.2±10.3, respec-
Implant length tively, p=0.023). Considering primary stability, no statistical differences were found between
Implant stability the implant lengths 8.0 mm, 10.0 mm, 11.0 mm, and 11.5 mm (67.9±7.6, 63.9±10, 57.2±11.1,
Osseointegration and 66.4±11.3, respectively, p=0.312). The same was observed for secondary stability (68.4±9.4,
Resonance frequency analysis 67.9±9.3, 74.7±1.5, and 69.2±7.9, respectively, p=0.504). Also, there were no statistically sig-
nificant differences between the implant diameters 3.75 mm and 4.20 mm concerning pri-
mary stability (64.3±8.7 and 66.1±11.7 respectively, p=0.445) or secondary stability (68.8±8.2
and 68.7±9.1 respectively, p=0.930). Regarding implant design, a statistically significant dif-
ference was found only for secondary stability, favoring MIS Seven implants (p=0.048). The
intraoral location was statistically significant for both primary and secondary stability, as
these were higher on the anterior maxilla than the posterior maxilla and mandible (p<0.05).
Conclusions: The diameter and length of the implants studied did not influence their stabil-
ity. Implant design may influence secondary stability, whereas intraoral location has a rel-
evant effect on primary and secondary stability. (Rev Port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac.
2021;62(1):9-15)
© 2021 Sociedade Portuguesa de Estomatologia e Medicina Dentária.
Published by SPEMD. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: andregonmoreira@gmail.com (André Moreira).
http://doi.org/10.24873/j.rpemd.2021.03.822
1646-2890/© 2021 Sociedade Portuguesa de Estomatologia e Medicina Dentária. Published by SPEMD.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).