Page 20 - SPEMD_62-1

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

influence secondary stability, whereas intraoral location has a stability. In the present study, the implant design significantly
relevant effect on primary and secondary stability. influenced the ISQ values on secondary rather than primary
The effect of implant length on primary stability and im- stability.
plant’s long -term prognosis has been a controversial issue. Besides the implant geometry, length, or diameter, other
Some studies showed that short implants failed more often parameters have to be considered regarding implant stability
than longer implants, while others reported that implant and success of dental implants, namely the bone quality, the
length did not significantly influence implant survival rates. surgical technique, or the insertion torque. The results of the
(16) Moreover, some studies suggested that increasing implant present study sho\uld be confirmed with a larger number of
length plays an important role in decreasing bone stress and implants, in bone substrates of different densities and with
17
increasing implant stability in poor quality bone areas. Like- different implant designs.
wise, some authors reported that implant diameter influenced More long -term controlled clinical trials are needed to con-
18
ISQ values, whereas others reported no differences. 19,20 firm the outcomes of the present study, with more patients and
In the present clinical study, the primary and secondary fixtures inserted and longer follow -ups, to formulate clear guide-
stability were evaluated in two types of implant designs (MIS lines for implant stability and the success of dental implants.
C1 implants and MIS Seven implants) at implant placement
and after a healing period. This study concluded that the im-
plants’ length was not significant for primary or secondary Conclusions
stability. These conclusions are in agreement with previous
research that found no correlation between implant length Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that,
and stability. 21 Regarding implant diameter, the results also rather than the diameter or length of implants, the anatomi-
showed no statistical difference on ISQ values between the cal region of implantation has a relevant effect on both pri-
different diameters for both primary and secondary stability. mary and secondary stability of dental implants.
These data agree with prior studies that found no correlation
between implant diameter and implant stability. 22
The perception that longer and larger implants have great- Acknowledgements
er stability may not be accurate. Implant design and the sur-
rounding bone may have a more significant effect on implant The authors would like to thank Andre Chen, Antonio Carva-
stability. The implant body design and the thread geometry are lho and Joao Canta, who participated in this investigation.
23
significant for improving the mechanical implant stability.
Within the limitations of this study, the implant design ap-
pears to play a role in implant stability measured after a heal- Ethical disclosures
ing period.
In respect to the bone region, the present study observed Protection of human and animal subjects. The authors
that implants placed in the anterior region had more primary declare that the procedures followed were in accordance with
stability than implants placed in the posterior regions of the the regulations of the relevant clinical research ethics com-
maxilla or mandible. The secondary stability was also poorer mittee and with those of the Code of Ethics of the World Med-
in the posterior areas of the jaws. The reason for this may be ical Association (Declaration of Helsinki).

related to low bone density, which causes decreased implant Confidentiality of data. The authors declare that they have
stability. The poorer implant stability in the posterior area
might explain the lower implant success rates reported in the followed their work center protocols on access to patient data
and for its publication.
24
posterior maxilla than in the other regions. In the present
study, the three implants that failed were placed in posterior Right to privacy and informed consent. The authors have
regions of the jaws. The posterior maxilla’s reduced bone den- obtained the written informed consent of the patients or sub-
sity and the challenges of mandibular posterior blood supply jects mentioned in the article. The corresponding author is in
may explain these failures. possession of this document.
These results agree with those of a previous investigation
that found that implants placed in the anterior region had
lower failure rates than implants placed in the jaws’ posterior Conflict of interest
25
region. In a more recent study, no differences were found in
ISQs regarding bone types, except between D2 and D3, accord- The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
26
ing to Misch’s classification. Some authors stated that, in
cases of low bone quality, an optimum increase in implant
length and diameter should be taken into account to achieve references
higher primary stability. 27
Limited data is available concerning the influence of im- 1. Marković A, Calvo -Guirado JL, Lazić Z, Gómez -Moreno G,
plant design on implant stability. A randomized clinical trial Ćalasan D, Guardia J, Čolic S, Aguilar -Salvatierra A, Gačić B,
Delgado -Ruiz R, Janjić B, Mišić T. Evaluation of primary
found a small initial advantage of conical implants with wide stability of self -tapping and non -self -tapping dental
pitch compared to semiconical implants and narrow pitch. implants. A 12 -week clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat
28
However, after 90 days, both implant designs showed similar Res. 2013;15:341 -9.