Comparison of Implant Stability with Respect to 5 Different Implant Surfaces

/Home/Dental Implants (Prosthodontics)/Dental Implants (Prosthodontics)Articles & Reports/Group 5

Comparison of Implant Stability with Respect to 5 Different Implant Surfaces
I. NERGIZ1, P. SCHMAGE1, N. ARPAK2, H. BOSTANCI2, W. NIEDERMEIER3, and U. PLATZER1, 1 University of Hamburg, Dental School, Germany, 2 University of Ankara, Turkey, 3 University of Cologne, Germany
2003
IADR
Objectives: The stability of osseointegrated implants can be tested by performing torsional strength measurement or using the Periotest device. As an advantage, evaluating the Periotest values do not destroy the osseointegration. The purpose of this study was to compare the torsional strengths as well as the Periotest values of four established (smooth, deep profile structured DPS, titanium plasma-sprayed TPS, hydroxyapatite-coated HA) and one experimental (Sol-Gel-hydroxyapatit-coated SGHA) surfaces on identical stepped cylindrical implants (Frialit-2, Friadent, GERMANY) under standardized conditions. Methods: 180 implants (n=36) were inserted into the mandibles of sheep dogs. After a healing period of 3 months half of the implants were loaded (LO) with cores for 6 months, the rest remained unloaded (UL). Periotest values PTV (Sirona, Bensheim, GERMANY) and torsional strengths (Wera electronic, Wuppertal, GERMANY) were evaluated at three different times (3, 6 or 9 months after insertion). The results were statistically analyzed (ANOVA, Scheff?©-correction). Results: Initially all implants had negativ PTV of about -2, but the smooth and the SGHA-implants had very low torsional strength resistance (0 to 5Ndm). These implants failed during the investigation. The PTV of DPS-, TPS- and HA- implants decreased not significantly to ǃÏ3 during the investigation period without loading, or ranged between ǃÏ4 (DPS, HA) and ǃÏ6 (TPS) under loading. The torsional forces of DPS-, TPS- and HA- implants were significantly higher compared to the other two groups. Initially HA was superior (28Ndm), but decreased due to the resorption of the HA-coating (16Ndm UL, 24Ndm LO). Under functional loading, torsional strengths increased for DPS (17Ndm) and significantly for TPS (25Ndm). The two different methods of measuring the implant stability did not correspond. Conclusion: Torsional strength measurement reveals more reliable results than the Periotest device. Controlled functional loading enhances implant stability, this improvement can be recorded using both methods.