Primary Stability Optimization by Using Fixtures with Different Thread Depth According To Bone Densi
1 Department of Oral Surgery, St Joseph University, Beirut 17-5208, Lebanon
2 Private practice, Beirut 17-5208, Lebanon
3 Private Practice, 87011 Cassano allo Ionio, Italy
4 GyeongSan Mir Dental Hospital, Gyeongsan 41934, Korea
5 Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, 34127 Trieste, Italy
6 Daegu Mir Dental Hospital, Jung-Gu, Daegu 41934, Korea
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 18 June 2019 / Accepted: 23 July 2019 / Published: 27 July 2019
Macro- and micro-geometry are among the factors influencing implant stability and potentially determining loading protocol. The purpose of this study was to test a protocol for early loading by controlling implant stability with the selection of fixtures with different thread depth according to the bone density of the implant site.
Materials and Methods:
Patients needing implant therapy for fixed prosthetic rehabilitation were treated by inserting fixtures with four different thread diameters, selected based on clinical assessment of bone quality at placement (D1, D2, D3, and D4, according to Misch classification). Final insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were recorded at baseline and ISQ measurements repeated after one, two, three, and four weeks. At the three-week measurement (four weeks after implant replacement), implants with ISQ > 70 Ncm were functionally loaded with provisional restorations. Marginal bone level was radiographically measured 12 months after implant insertion.
Fourteen patients were treated with the insertion of forty implants: Among them, 39 implants showing ISQ > 70 after 3 weeks of healing were loaded with provisional restoration. Mean IT value was 82.3 ± 33.2 Ncm and varied between the four different types of bone (107.2 ± 35.6 Ncm, 74.7 ± 14.0 Ncm, 76.5 ± 31.1 Ncm, and 55.2 ± 22.6 Ncm in D1, D2, D3, and D4 bone, respectively). Results showed significant differences except between D2 and D3 bone types. Mean ISQ at baseline was 79.3 ± 4.3 and values in D1, D2, D3, and D4 bone were 81.9 ± 2.0, 81.1 ± 1.0, 78.3 ± 3.7, and 73.2 ± 4.9, respectively. Results showed significant differences except between D1 and D2 bone types. IT and ISQ showed a significant positive correlation when analyzing the entire sample (p = 0.0002) and D4 bone type (p = 0.0008). The correlation between IT and ISQ was not significant when considering D1, D2, and D3 types (p = 0.28; p = 0.31; p = 0.16, respectively). ISQ values showed a slight drop at three weeks for D1, D2, and D3 bone while remaining almost unchanged in D4 bone. At 12-month follow-up, all implants (39 early loading, 1 conventional loading) had satisfactory function, showing an average marginal bone loss of 0.12 ± 0.12 mm, when compared to baseline levels. Conclusion: Matching implant macro-geometry to bone density can lead to adequate implant stability both in hard and soft bone. High primary stability and limited implant stability loss during the first month of healing could allow the application of early loading protocols with predictable clinical outcomes.
Keywords: dental implants; osseointegration; bone density; torque; early loading; implant macrodesign