Can implant surfaces affect implant stability during osseointegration? A randomized clinical trial

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: CARMO FILHO,Luiz Carlos do
Publication Date: 2018
Other Authors: MARCELLO-MACHADO,Raissa Micaella, CASTILHOS,Eduardo Dickie de, DEL BEL CURY,Altair Antoninha, FAOT,Fernanda
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Brazilian Oral Research
Download full: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100286
Summary: Abstract This randomized clinical trial evaluated the insertion torque (IT), primary, and secondary stability of dental implants with different surface treatments during the osseointegration period. Nineteen patients with bilateral partial edentulism in the posterior mandibular region were randomly allocated to two implant brand groups and received implants with different surface treatments in the opposite site of the arch: Osseotite and Nanotite or SLA and SLActive. During implant placement, the maximum IT was recorded using a surgical motor equipped with a graphical user interface. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was assessed immediately after the IT, and was measured weekly via resonance frequency analysis during 3 months. The data were analyzed by a one-way ANOVA, the Bonferroni test, paired t tests and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The IT values were similar (p > 0.05) for all implant types ranging from 43.82 ± 6.50 to 46.84 ± 5.06. All implant types behaved similarly until the 28th day (p > 0.05). Between 35 and 56 days, Osseotite and SLActive showed lower ISQ values (p < 0.001) compared to Nanotite and SLA implants. After 56 days, only Osseotite maintained significantly lower ISQ values than the other implants (p < 0.05). After 91 days the ISQ values were significantly higher than the baseline for all four implant types (p < 0.001). The ISQ and IT values were significantly correlated at the baseline and at the final evaluation for Osseotite, Nanotite, and SLActive implants (p < 0.001). After 91 days, ISQ and IT values were only significantly correlated for the Osseotite implants (p < 0.05). All implants types exhibited acceptable primary and secondary stability.
id SBPQO-1_c7b8b29307cc6635d141c11f54d76f46
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1806-83242018000100286
network_acronym_str SBPQO-1
network_name_str Brazilian Oral Research
repository_id_str
spelling Can implant surfaces affect implant stability during osseointegration? A randomized clinical trialDental ImplantsRandomized Clinical Trials as TopicJaw, Edentulous, PartiallyAbstract This randomized clinical trial evaluated the insertion torque (IT), primary, and secondary stability of dental implants with different surface treatments during the osseointegration period. Nineteen patients with bilateral partial edentulism in the posterior mandibular region were randomly allocated to two implant brand groups and received implants with different surface treatments in the opposite site of the arch: Osseotite and Nanotite or SLA and SLActive. During implant placement, the maximum IT was recorded using a surgical motor equipped with a graphical user interface. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was assessed immediately after the IT, and was measured weekly via resonance frequency analysis during 3 months. The data were analyzed by a one-way ANOVA, the Bonferroni test, paired t tests and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The IT values were similar (p > 0.05) for all implant types ranging from 43.82 ± 6.50 to 46.84 ± 5.06. All implant types behaved similarly until the 28th day (p > 0.05). Between 35 and 56 days, Osseotite and SLActive showed lower ISQ values (p < 0.001) compared to Nanotite and SLA implants. After 56 days, only Osseotite maintained significantly lower ISQ values than the other implants (p < 0.05). After 91 days the ISQ values were significantly higher than the baseline for all four implant types (p < 0.001). The ISQ and IT values were significantly correlated at the baseline and at the final evaluation for Osseotite, Nanotite, and SLActive implants (p < 0.001). After 91 days, ISQ and IT values were only significantly correlated for the Osseotite implants (p < 0.05). All implants types exhibited acceptable primary and secondary stability.Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO2018-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100286Brazilian Oral Research v.32 2018reponame:Brazilian Oral Researchinstname:Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)instacron:SBPQO10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0110info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCARMO FILHO,Luiz Carlos doMARCELLO-MACHADO,Raissa MicaellaCASTILHOS,Eduardo Dickie deDEL BEL CURY,Altair AntoninhaFAOT,Fernandaeng2018-10-22T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1806-83242018000100286Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/bor/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phppob@edu.usp.br||bor@sbpqo.org.br1807-31071806-8324opendoar:2018-10-22T00:00Brazilian Oral Research - Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Can implant surfaces affect implant stability during osseointegration? A randomized clinical trial
title Can implant surfaces affect implant stability during osseointegration? A randomized clinical trial
spellingShingle Can implant surfaces affect implant stability during osseointegration? A randomized clinical trial
CARMO FILHO,Luiz Carlos do
Dental Implants
Randomized Clinical Trials as Topic
Jaw, Edentulous, Partially
title_short Can implant surfaces affect implant stability during osseointegration? A randomized clinical trial
title_full Can implant surfaces affect implant stability during osseointegration? A randomized clinical trial
title_fullStr Can implant surfaces affect implant stability during osseointegration? A randomized clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Can implant surfaces affect implant stability during osseointegration? A randomized clinical trial
title_sort Can implant surfaces affect implant stability during osseointegration? A randomized clinical trial
author CARMO FILHO,Luiz Carlos do
author_facet CARMO FILHO,Luiz Carlos do
MARCELLO-MACHADO,Raissa Micaella
CASTILHOS,Eduardo Dickie de
DEL BEL CURY,Altair Antoninha
FAOT,Fernanda
author_role author
author2 MARCELLO-MACHADO,Raissa Micaella
CASTILHOS,Eduardo Dickie de
DEL BEL CURY,Altair Antoninha
FAOT,Fernanda
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv CARMO FILHO,Luiz Carlos do
MARCELLO-MACHADO,Raissa Micaella
CASTILHOS,Eduardo Dickie de
DEL BEL CURY,Altair Antoninha
FAOT,Fernanda
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Dental Implants
Randomized Clinical Trials as Topic
Jaw, Edentulous, Partially
topic Dental Implants
Randomized Clinical Trials as Topic
Jaw, Edentulous, Partially
description Abstract This randomized clinical trial evaluated the insertion torque (IT), primary, and secondary stability of dental implants with different surface treatments during the osseointegration period. Nineteen patients with bilateral partial edentulism in the posterior mandibular region were randomly allocated to two implant brand groups and received implants with different surface treatments in the opposite site of the arch: Osseotite and Nanotite or SLA and SLActive. During implant placement, the maximum IT was recorded using a surgical motor equipped with a graphical user interface. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was assessed immediately after the IT, and was measured weekly via resonance frequency analysis during 3 months. The data were analyzed by a one-way ANOVA, the Bonferroni test, paired t tests and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The IT values were similar (p > 0.05) for all implant types ranging from 43.82 ± 6.50 to 46.84 ± 5.06. All implant types behaved similarly until the 28th day (p > 0.05). Between 35 and 56 days, Osseotite and SLActive showed lower ISQ values (p < 0.001) compared to Nanotite and SLA implants. After 56 days, only Osseotite maintained significantly lower ISQ values than the other implants (p < 0.05). After 91 days the ISQ values were significantly higher than the baseline for all four implant types (p < 0.001). The ISQ and IT values were significantly correlated at the baseline and at the final evaluation for Osseotite, Nanotite, and SLActive implants (p < 0.001). After 91 days, ISQ and IT values were only significantly correlated for the Osseotite implants (p < 0.05). All implants types exhibited acceptable primary and secondary stability.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100286
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100286
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0110
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Oral Research v.32 2018
reponame:Brazilian Oral Research
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)
instacron:SBPQO
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)
instacron_str SBPQO
institution SBPQO
reponame_str Brazilian Oral Research
collection Brazilian Oral Research
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Oral Research - Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv pob@edu.usp.br||bor@sbpqo.org.br
_version_ 1750318326128574464