Effect of length, diameter, intraoral location on implant stability

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Kyle Shiffler ; DDS^a ; David Lee ; DDS^a ; Mark Rowan ; DDS^a ; Tara Aghaloo ; DDS ; MD ; PhD^a ; Joan Pi-Anfruns ; DMD^a ; Peter K. Moy ; DMD^b ; ^{drmoy@titaniumimplant.com" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author}
• 刊名：Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：December 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：122
• 期：6
• 页码：e193-e198
• 全文大小：716 K

文摘

To quantitatively compare stability of dental implants with varying lengths, diameters, and intraoral locations.

Study Design

Retrospectively, 200 consecutive NobelReplace Tapered Groovy implants of varying lengths and diameters were evaluated via implant stability quotient readings at placement (T1) and follow-up (T2). Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and simple linear regression tests.

Results

Intraoral location was statistically significant at T1 and T2. Although implant diameter was not statistically significant, implant length resulted in T1 (P = .08) and T2 (P = .09), which may have a clinically relevant effect on implant stability. An overall implant survival rate of 98% was achieved. Gender and age did not seem to affect implant stability quotient values at placement, follow-up, or implant survival.

Conclusions

Intraoral location is an important factor in implant stability, with implants placed in the mandible being more stable than implants placed in the maxilla both at T1 and T2. Length may have a clinically relevant effect on implant stability.