16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: The aim of the present study was to compare, in low-density polyurethane blocks, the primary implant stability values (micromobility) and removal torque values of three different implant geometries in two different bone densities representing the structure of the human posterior jaws. Methods: A total of 60 implants were used in the present investigation: twenty implants for each of three groups (group A, group B, and group C), in both polyurethane 10 pcf and 20 pcf densities. The insertion torque, pull-out torque, and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were obtained. Results: No differences were found in the values of Group A and Group B implants. In both these groups, the insertion torques were quite low in the 10 pcf blocks. Better results were found in the 20 pcf blocks, which showed very good stability of the implants. The pull-out values were slightly lower than the insertion torque values. High ISQ values were found in Group A and B implants. Lower values were present in Group C implants. Conclusions: The present investigation evaluated implants with different geometries that are available on the market, and not experimental implants specifically created for the study. The authors aimed to simulate real clinical conditions (poor-density bone or immediate post-extraction implants) in which knowledge of dental implant features, which may be useful in increasing the primary stability, may help the oral surgeon during the surgery planning.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review.

          To review the literature to assess the amount of change in height and width of the residual ridge after tooth extraction. MEDLINE-PubMed and the Cochrane Central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) were searched through up to March 2009. Appropriate studies which data reported concerning the dimensional changes in alveolar height and width after tooth extraction were included. Approximal height change, mid-buccal change, mid-crestal change, mid-lingual change, Alveolar width change and socket fill were selected as outcome variables. Mean values and if available standard deviations were extracted. Weighted mean changes were calculated. Independent screening of the titles and abstracts of 1244 MEDLINE-PubMed and 106 Cochrane papers resulted in 12 publications that met the eligibility criteria. The reduction in width of the alveolar ridges was 3.87 mm. The mean clinical mid-buccal height loss was 1.67 mm. The mean crestal height change as assessed on the radiographs was 1.53 mm. Socket fill in height as measured relative to the original socket floor was on an average 2.57 mm. During the post-extraction healing period, the weighted mean changes as based on the data derived from the individual selected studies show the clinical loss in width to be greater than the loss in height, assessed both clinically as well as radiographically.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Implant stability measurements using resonance frequency analysis: biological and biomechanical aspects and clinical implications.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Alveolar socket healing: what can we learn?

              Tooth extraction induces a series of complex and integrated local changes within the investing hard and soft tissues. These local alterations arise in order to close the socket wound and to restore tissue homeostasis, and are referred to as '"socket healing". The aims of the present report were twofold: first, to describe the socket-healing process; and, second, to discuss what can be learned from the temporal sequence of healing events, in order to improve treatment outcomes. The socket-healing process may be divided into three sequential, and frequently overlapping, phases: inflammatory; proliferative; and modeling/remodeling. Several clinical and experimental studies have demonstrated that the socket-healing process promotes up to 50% reduction of the original ridge width, greater bone resorption at the buccal aspect than at the lingual/palatal counterpart and a larger amount of alveolar bone reduction in the molar region. In conclusion, tooth extraction, once a simple and straightforward surgical procedure, should be performed in the knowledge that ridge reduction will follow and that further clinical steps should be considered to compensate for this, when considering future options for tooth replacement.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                11 April 2020
                April 2020
                : 17
                : 8
                : 2617
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Private Practice, San Vendemiano-Conegliano, 31020 Treviso, Italy; luca.comuzzi@ 123456gmail.com
                [2 ]Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy; apiattelli@ 123456unich.it (A.P.); gio.iezzi@ 123456unich.it (G.I.)
                [3 ]Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora-Campus Governador Valadares, São Paulo 01000, Brazil; anaemiliapontes@ 123456yahoo.com.br
                [4 ]Biomaterials Engineering, Catholic University of San Antonio de Murcia (UCAM), 30001 Murcia, Spain
                [5 ]Fondazione Villaserena per la Ricerca, Città Sant’Angelo, 65121 Pescara, Italy
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: margytumedei@ 123456yahoo.it ; Tel.: +39-0871-3554083
                [†]

                These two Authors had an equal contribution to the study.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8770-5297
                Article
                ijerph-17-02617
                10.3390/ijerph17082617
                7216137
                32290361
                d5df2ec8-2453-4f7a-967a-a701860ea4f4
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 06 February 2020
                : 08 April 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                bone density,cylindrical implants,conical implants,implant stability quotient,insertion and pull-out torque,polyurethane foam blocks,primary stability

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                40
                2
                32
                0
                Smart Citations
                40
                2
                32
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content66

                Cited by8

                Most referenced authors490