Effect of implant macrogeometry on peri-implant healing outcomes: a randomized clinical trial
- 144 Downloads
This randomized split-mouth clinical trial investigated the influence of implant macrogeometry on bone properties and peri-implant health parameters during the healing process.
Material and methods
Ninety-nine implants were placed bilaterally in posterior mandibles of 23 patients that received at least four dental implant macrogeometries: standard geometry, Integra (IN) and three geometries inducing “healing chamber”: Duo (D), Compact (C), and Infra (IF). Insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were measured. Peri-implant health were monitored by visible plaque index (VPI), peri-implant inflammation (PI), and presence of calculus (CC). Data were collected during 90 days. Data were assessed for normality using the asymmetry and kurtosis coefficients followed by the Shapiro-Wilk test. A one-way ANOVA was used to investigate differences in IT and linear bone dimensions between the macrogeometry groups. The repeated measurements ANOVA test or ANOVA-R was used for analysis of ISQ, VPI, and PI. Tukey-Kramer test or Student’s t test was used for comparisons between the groups or within each macrogeometry.
Macrogeometry did not significantly influence IT and ISQ values. The minimum ISQ was recorded after 7 days (71.95 ± 12.04, p = 0.0001). Intermediate ISQ was found after 14 days, when the ISQ reached values that are statistically identical to primary stability. The VPI showed significantly higher scores for the D (0.88 ± 1.03) and IN (0.72 ± 0.94) implants after 7 days. The PI was only influenced by the healing time significantly decreasing from 7 (1.07 ± 0.89) to 21 days (0.18 ± 0.18).
Implant macrogeometry did not influence IT nor ISQ values. The relationship between IT and SS was more evident for the Duo implant, but only in the final stage of healing process.
Show to the clinician that the macrogeometry and drilling protocols did not interfere in the clinical behavior of the implants during the healing process. However, the IT, primary and secondary stability, is quite dependent of the surgeon experience.
KeywordsDental implant Periodontal healing Pocket depth Alveolar bone Inflammation
The authors thank to Signo Vinces Dental Implants Company for supplying the dental implants used in the study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The research protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of School of Dentistry (Report no. 1.458.507), Federal University of Pelotas.
The informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 4.Norton M (2013) Primary stability versus viable constraint—a need to redefine. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:19–21Google Scholar
- 10.Santamaría-Arrieta G, Brizuela-Velasco A, Fernández-González FJ et al (2016) Biomechanical evaluation of oversized drilling technique on primary implant stability measured by insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis. J Clin Exp Dent 8:e307–e311. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.52873 Google Scholar
- 13.Raghavendra S, Wood MC, Taylor TD et al (2005) Early wound healing around endosseous implants: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20:425–431Google Scholar
- 20.Coelho PG, Suzuki M, Guimaraes MVM, Marin C, Granato R, Gil JN, Miller RJ (2010) Early bone healing around different implant bulk designs and surgical techniques: a study in dogs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 12:202–208Google Scholar
- 24.Waechter J, Madruga M de M, do CFLC et al (2017) Comparison between tapered and cylindrical implants in the posterior regions of the mandible: a prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial focusing on implant stability changes during early healing. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 19:733–741.Google Scholar
- 25.Simons W-F, De Smit M, Duyck J, Coucke W, Quirynen M (2015) The proportion of cancellous bone as predictive factor for early marginal bone loss around implants in the posterior part of the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 26:1051–1059Google Scholar
- 26.Salvi GE, Lang NP (2004) Diagnostic parameters for monitoring peri-implant conditions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19(Suppl):116–127Google Scholar
- 29.Menicucci G, Pachie E, Lorenzetti M, Migliaretti G, Carossa S (2012) Comparison of primary stability of straight-walled and tapered implants using an insertion torque device. Int J Prosthodont 25:465–471Google Scholar
- 34.Atsumi M, Park S-H, Wang H-L (2007) Methods used to assess implant stability: current status. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22:743–754Google Scholar
- 35.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 5:162–167Google Scholar