REVIEW
Interventional Medicine & Applied Science, Vol. 5 (4), pp. 162–167 (2013)
Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: Factors of influence and evaluation FAWAD JAVED1,*, HAMEEDA BASHIR AHMED2, ROBERTO CRESPI3, GEORGIOS E. ROMANOS4 1
Eng. A.B. Research Chair for Growth Factors and Bone Regeneration, 3D Imaging and Biomechanical Laboratory, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 2 Department of Dentistry, Al-Farabi Dental College, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 3 Department of Dentistry, Vita Salute University, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy 4 Department of Dental Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA *Corresponding author: Dr. Fawad Javed; Eng. A.B. Research Chair for Growth Factors and Bone Regeneration, 3D Imaging and Biomechanical Laboratory, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; E-mail: [email protected] (Received: September 24, 2013; Revised manuscript received: September 29, 2013; Accepted: September 30, 2013) Abstract: A secure implant primary (mechanical) stability is positively associated with a successful implant integration and long-term successful clinical outcome. Therefore, it is essential to assess the initial stability at different time-points to ensure a successful osseointegration. The present study critically reviews the factors that may play a role in achieving a successful initial stability in dental implants. Databases were searched from 1983 up to and including October 2013 using different combinations of various keywords. Bone quality and quantity, implant geometry, and surgical technique adopted may significantly influence primary stability and overall success rate of dental implants. Keywords: dental implants, bone density, implant surface topography, osseointegration, primary stability, surgical technique
elling phenomena determine the secondary (biological) stability to the implant [9, 10]. A secure primary stability is positively associated with a secondary stability [11]. Extent of implant stability may also depend on the situation of surrounding tissues [3, 12]. Bone quantity and quality, implant geometry, and surgical technique adopted are also among the predominant clinical factors that affect primary stability [13]. Therefore, it is essential to assess the implant stability at different time-points in order to ensure a successful osseointegration. In this context, the objective of the present review was to assess the factors that may play a role in achieving a successful primary stability in dental implants.
Introduction Traditionally, endosseous implants are loaded once bone healing has occurred, which takes approximately 3 months in the mandible and 6 months in the maxilla [1, 2]. Today, modifications of this treatment protocol using immediate loading of implants are an eminent and acknowledged treatment strategy for the rehabilitation of missing teeth [3–5]. Histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of immediately loaded implants recovered from humans has also shown a high degree of bone-to-implant contact percentages [6, 7]. However, for any implant procedure, successful implant integration is a prerequisite criterion, which depends on a series of procedure-related and patient-dependent measures [8]. Successful osseointegration from the clinical standpoint is a measure of implant stability, which occurs after implant integration [9]. Two terms, such as the primary and the secondary implant stability, are related to implant therapy. Primary stability is associated with the mechanical engagement of an implant with the surrounding bone, whereas bone regeneration and remod-
DOI: 10.1556/IMAS.5.2013.4.3
Materials and Methods The National Library of Medicine, Washington DC (MEDLINE–PubMed) was searched for appropriate articles addressing the focused question. Databases were searched from 1983 up to and including October 2013 using the following terms in different combinations: “bone,” “dental,” “design,” “implant,” “immediate
162
ISSN 2061-1617 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
Primary stability and osseointegration
loading,” “implant length,” implant diameter,” “maxilla,” “mandible,” “narrow implant,” “osseointegration,” “primary stability,” “surgical technique,” and “wide implant.” The eligibility criteria were based on human and experimental studies, use of control group, articles published only in English language, and reference list of potentially related original and review studies. The second step was to hand-search the reference lists of original and review studies that were found to be relevant in the first step. After final selection of the papers, those that fulfilled the selection criteria were processed for data extraction. The structure of the present literature review was customized to mainly summarize the relevant information.
Pre-requisites for a successful primary stability Primary stability is accomplished when the implant is placed in the bone in such a position that it is “wellseated.” This allows the implant to mechanically adapt to the host bone until secondary stability is achieved [13]. Impaired primary implant stability has been shown to jeopardize the osseointegration process [14]. The success of this adaptation, however, depends on several factors, including the density and dimension of the bone surrounding the implant, the implant design, and surgical technique used (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.
Factors affecting implant stability
Interventional Medicine & Applied Science
Bone density and quality The significance of bone density and its association with implant dentistry has existed for more than two decades. Several classifications regarding bone density have been recommended as shown in Fig. 2. Bone quality is often referred to as the amount (and their topographic relationship) of cortical and cancellous bone in which the recipient site is drilled. A poor bone quantity and quality have been indicated as the main risk factors for implant failure as it may be associated with excessive bone resorption and impairment in the healing process compared with higher density bone [15–17]. Clinical studies have reported dental implants in the mandible to have higher survival rates compared to those in the maxilla, especially for the posterior maxilla [18, 19]. Bone quality has been considered as the basic cause of this difference. In the posterior maxilla, there is commonly thinner cortical bone combined with thicker trabecular bone compared to the mandible [20, 21]. Clinically, a poor degree of bone mineralization or limited bone resistance is observed in bones with poor densities, which are often referred to as “soft bones” [20, 22]. It has been shown that achieving optimum primary stability in soft bones is difficult and is also related to a higher implant failure rate for the implants placed in such bones [15, 23]. Turkyilmaz et al. [24] reported the bone quality around the implant to be superior in the mandible compared to the maxilla. A clinical study [25] with 158 implant sites from 85 patients indicated a strong correlation between bone density and dental implant stability. Results by Miyamoto et al. [26] demonstrated that dental implant stability is positively associated with the thickness of cortical bone thickness. In contrast to the previous studies, additional studies in the posterior mandible showed high failure rates due to the poor bone quality as well as other additional factors [27, 28]. Computerized tomography (CT) has been regarded as the best radiographic method for analyzing the morphological and qualitative analysis of the residual bone [29–31]. It is also a valuable means for evaluating the relative distribution of cortical and cancellous bone [32]. However, the density of the surrounding bone seems to play an essential role in high occlusal forces, and therefore, the high bone-to-implant (BIC) percentages of a thin, “carpet”-like bone in contact with the implant surface seems to be not clinically significant compared to lower rate of BIC in a thick bone. Intraoperative surgical techniques, such as bone condensing, undersizing the osteotomy, improve the bone density and increase the primary (mechanical) stability. In contrast to that, loading effects on the periimplant bone under delayed or immediate loading conditions influence the secondary (biological) stability increasing the percentage of the bone-to-implant (BIC) contacts [27, 33].
163
ISSN 2061-1617 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
Javed et al.
Fig. 2.
Bone dentistry classifications
Implant design Implant design refers to the three-dimensional structure of an implant with all the components and features that characterize it. It has been reported that the implant design is a vital parameter for attaining primary stability [34]. The texture of an implant’s surface can influence the bone–implant interface. Studies [6, 33, 35] have demonstrated a relationship between implant design and osseointegration. Implants of varying designs, placed in different bone qualities, reach various degrees of stability, which may determine their future clinical performance [36, 37]. Originally, implants were fabricated in a parallel design; however, they were not appropriate for most applications. Tapered implants were later introduced to enhance aesthetics and assist implant placement between adjacent natural teeth [38]. The hypothesis behind using tapered implants was to provide a degree of compression of the cortical bone in an implant site with inadequate bone [39]. Cylindrical wide body implants increase the risk of labial bone perforation especially in thin alveolar ridges due to presence of buccal concavities, whereas the decrease in diameter of the tapered implants toward the apical region accommodates for the labial concavity [40]. However, according to Chong et al. [34], if bone quality and quantity are optimal, then they may compensate for implant design inadequacy.
ISSN 2061-1617 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
Implant surface characteristics and diameter have also been shown to influence primary stability. Rough implant surfaces present a larger surface area and allow a firmer mechanical link to the surrounding tissues [11]. In vitro studies [41, 42] have shown that sandblasted implant surfaces promote peri-implant osteogenesis by enhancing the growth and metabolic activity of osteoblasts [41, 42]. Studies [6, 43, 44] have shown that surface topography and roughness positively influence the healing process by promoting favorable cellular responses and cell surface interactions. In poor bone quality sites, implants with an acid-etched surfaces can achieve a significantly higher bone-to-implant contact compared to implants with a machined surface [45]. Clinical studies have shown that implants with smaller diameters (less than 3.0 millimeters) provide sufficient primary stability in cases with a limited bone volume [46, 47]. It is accepted that all implants display some extent of bone loss after osseointegration and through time of function. It has been claimed that the introduction of microthreads or “retention grooves” at the neck of the implant may assist in reducing distributing stress and reducing the extent of bone loss following the implant installation [48]. In the reality, crestal bone preservation can be associated with the surgical technique and the presence of platform switching [49]. In addition, the progressive thread design seems to decrease the compression of the crestal bone preserving in that way the crestal bone loss [49].
164
Interventional Medicine & Applied Science
Primary stability and osseointegration
Surgical technique Besides the quantity and quality of bone and morphology of the implant, the surgical technique adopted also influences primary stability. Therefore, the undersized drilling technique was introduced to locally optimize bone density and subsequently improve primary stability. Numerous modifications in surgical technique have been described which might assist in enhancing primary stability of dental implants. Some studies [50, 51] recommend the use of a final drill diameter which is smaller than the diameter of the implant; however, Summers [52] recommended the technique of bone condensing, where, after using the pilot drill, the cancellous bone is pushed aside with “condensers” (osteotomes), thus, increasing the density of the surrounding bone, increasing in that way the initial implant stability. It has been reported high survival rates with the immediate loading of dental implants, which are attributed to high primary stability [43, 53]. Some studies have also preferred insertion torque as a determinant of implant stability, and torque values of 32, 35, or 40 Ncm and higher have been chosen as thresholds for immediate loading [54, 55]. This threshold seems to be important due to the selection of implant–abutment connections, which have the need of this torque to engage the abutment to the implant body via the fixation screw based on the manufacturer guidelines. Also implants placed in a weak bone (poor bone quality) may be loaded immediately and demonstrate high survival rates when the final torque in the implant–abutment connection is lower, i.e., nearly 15–20 Ncm [13].
Methods of evaluation of the primary stability Two methods are usually employed to measure the clinical stability of an implant, namely, the Periotest (PT) and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) measurement using Osstell device. The PT gauges temporal contact of the tip of the instrument during repetitive percussions on the implant. PT values include a narrow range over the scale of the instrument and, thus, provide comparatively less sensitive information concerning implant stability [56]. It has been suggested that the measurement of the moment of force or torque (required for seating an implant in bone) can also be used to measure the primary stability of an implant [57]. The RFA device measures the resonance frequency of a transductor attached to the implant body, which is stimulated by different frequencies. According to a study by Sul et al. [58], RFA is a reliable indicator for identifying implant stability with assurance. This
Interventional Medicine & Applied Science
instrument has a graphic display panel showing the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values, which indicate the firmness at the implant–tissue interface [59]. ISQ values greater than 65 have been regarded as most favorable for implant stability, whereas ISQ values below 45 indicate a poor primary stability [60]. However, there is no justification for a routine clinical use of the PT and RFA techniques [61], as a disadvantage of the ISQ evaluation technique is that the value is dependent on the insertion of the magnet (transducer) to the implant. When the transducer is not well screwed on the implant body (without to use the final insertion torque), a low ISQ value has been evaluated. In addition, the ISQ value is possible to be performed only before the final abutment is connected and cannot be performed with the prosthetic restoration. Further modifications of this technique are needed in order to be able to evaluate the implant stability in a precise and clinical reliable way.
Effect of micromotions on primary stability When the ends of a fractured long bone are reduced, then there should be absolutely no movement between the fragments to endorse fracture healing [62]. This happens because movements, even at the micrometer range, can induce a stress or strain that may hinder the formation of new cells in the gap. The same phenomenon is applied at the bone-to-implant interface [63]. The induction of micromotion during functional loading may primarily be responsible for failure of osseointegration and ultimately implant loss [64]. Micromotions above 50–100 micrometers may negatively influence osseointegration and bone remodelling by forming fibrous tissues and inducing bone resorption at the bone-to-implant interface [65–67]. Therefore, a high initial (mechanical) stability is essential for a successful osseointegration of dental implants. Studies [27, 33, 68] have reported that a well-controlled micromotion positively influenced bone formation; therefore, more advanced clinical conditions, like immediate functional loading of implants placed in healed ridges or also fresh extraction sockets, seem to improve the peri-implant bone density and improve the implant integration.
Conclusions This literature review highlights the importance of achieving a successful primary stability for successful implant integration. Bone quality and quantity, implant geometry, and surgical technique adopted may significantly influence implant initial stability and overall success rate of dental implants.
165
ISSN 2061-1617 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
Javed et al.
*** Funding sources: The authors thank the College of Dentistry Research Centre and Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia for funding this research project (Project # FR 0075). Authors’ contributions: FJ wrote the manuscript and revised it prior to submission, HBA performed the literature search and revised the manuscript for English vocabulary. RC wrote the manuscript and revised it prior to submission. GER designed and mentored the study, wrote the manuscript and revised it prior to submission. Conflict of interest: None.
References 1. Branemark PI: Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 50, 399–410 (1983) 2. de Freitas RM, Susin C, Spin-Neto R, Marcantonio C, Wikesjö UME, Pereira LAVD, Marcantonio E Jr: Horizontal ridge augmentation of the atrophic anterior maxilla using rhBMP-2/ACS or autogenous bone grafts: A proof-of-concept randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 40, 968–975 (2013) 3. Javed F, Romanos GE: Impact of diabetes mellitus and glycemic control on the osseointegration of dental implants: a systematic literature review. J Periodontol 80, 1719–1730 (2009) 4. Romanos GE: Treatment of advanced periodontal destruction with immediately loaded implants and simultaneous bone augmentation: a case report. J Periodontol 74, 255–261 (2003) 5. Penarrocha M, Boronat A, Garcia B: Immediate loading of immediate mandibular implants with a full-arch fixed prosthesis: a preliminary study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67, 1286–1293 (2009) 6. Romanos GE, Johansson CB: Immediate loading with complete implant-supported restorations in an edentulous heavy smoker: Histologic and histomorphometric analyses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20, 282–290 (2005) 7. Romanos GE, Testori T, Degidi M, Piattelli A: Histologic and histomorphometric findings from retrieved, immediately occlusally loaded implants in humans. J Periodontol 76, 1823–1832 (2005) 8. Beer A, Gahleitner A, Holm A, Tschabitscher M, Homolka P: Correlation of insertion torques with bone mineral density from dental quantitative CT in the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 14, 616–620 (2003) 9. Natali AN, Carniel EL, Pavan PG: Investigation of viscoelastoplastic response of bone tissue in oral implants press fit process. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 91, 868–875 (2009) 10. Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Romanos G, Tarnow D: Clinical recommendations for avoiding and managing surgical complications associated with implant dentistry: A review. J Periodontol 79, 1317–1329 (2008) 11. Davies JE: Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J Prosthodont 11, 391–401 (1998) 12. Javed F, Almas K: Osseointegration of dental implants in patients undergoing bisphosphonate treatment: A literature review. J Periodontol 81, 479–484 (2010) 13. Romanos GE: Bone quality and the immediate loading of implants – Critical aspects based on literature, research, and clinical experience. Implant Dent 18, 203–209 (2009) 14. Roos J, Sennerby L, Albrektsson T: An update on the clinical documentation on currently used bone anchored endosseous oral implants. Dent Update 24, 194–200 (1997)
ISSN 2061-1617 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
166
15. Jaffin RA, Berman CL: The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: A 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 62, 2–4 (1991) 16. Ulm C, Kneissel M, Schedle A, Solar P, Matejka M, Schneider B, Donath K: Characteristic features of trabecular bone in edentulous maxillae. Clin Oral Implants Res 10, 459–467 (1999) 17. Herrmann I, Lekholm U, Holm S, Kultje C: Evaluation of patient and implant characteristics as potential prognostic factors for oral implant failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20, 220–230 (2005) 18. Jemt T, Stenport V: Implant treatment with fixed prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part 2: Prosthetic technique and clinical maintenance in two patient cohorts restored between 1986 and 1987 and 15 years later. Int J Prosthodont 24, 356–362 (2011) 19. Jemt T, Stenport V, Friberg B: Implant treatment with fixed prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part 1: Implants and biologic response in two patient cohorts restored between 1986 and 1987 and 15 years later. Int J Prosthodont 24, 345–355 (2011) 20. Jacobs R: Preoperative radiologic planning of implant surgery in compromised patients. Periodontol 2000 33, 12–25 (2003) 21. Shibli JA, Mangano C, Mangano F, Rodrigues JA, Cassoni A, Bechara K, Ferreia JD, Dottore AM, Iezzi G, Piattelli A: Boneto-implant contact around immediately loaded direct laser metalforming transitional implants in human posterior maxilla. J Periodontol 84, 732–737 (2013) 22. Lazzara R, Siddiqui AA, Binon P, Feldman SA, Weiner R, Phillips R, Gonshor A: Retrospective multicenter analysis of 3i endosseous dental implants placed over a five-year period. Clin Oral Implants Res 7, 73–83 (1996) 23. Johns RB, Jemt T, Heath MR, Hutton JE, McKenna S, McNamara DC, van Steenberghe D, Taylor R, Watson RM, Herrmann I: A multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 7, 513–522 (1992) 24. Turkyilmaz I, Tozum TF, Tumer C: Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography. J Oral Rehabil 34, 267–272 (2007) 25. Turkyilmaz I, McGlumphy EA: Influence of bone density on implant stability parameters and implant success: A retrospective clinical study. BMC Oral Health 8, 32 (2008) 26. Miyamoto I, Tsuboi Y, Wada E, Suwa H, Iizuka T: Influence of cortical bone thickness and implant length on implant stability at the time of surgery – Clinical, prospective, biomechanical, and imaging study. Bone 37, 776–780 (2005) 27. Schwartz-Arad D, Samet N: Single tooth replacement of missing molars: A retrospective study of 78 implants. J Periodontol 70, 449–454 (1999) 28. Becktor JP, Eckert SE, Isaksson S, Keller EE: The influence of mandibular dentition on implant failures in bone-grafted edentulous maxillae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17, 69–77 (2002) 29. Turkyilmaz I, Tozum TF, Tumer C, Ozbek EN: Assessment of correlation between computerized tomography values of the bone, and maximum torque and resonance frequency values at dental implant placement. J Oral Rehabil 33, 881–888 (2006) 30. Lee S, Gantes B, Riggs M, Crigger M: Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 3. Bone quality evaluation during osteotomy and implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22, 208–212 (2007) 31. Al-Askar M, O’Neill R, Stark PC, Griffin T, Javed F, Al-Hezaimi K: Effect of single and contiguous teeth extractions on alveolar bone remodeling: A study in dogs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 15, 569–575 (2013) 32. Shahlaie M, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Crigger M: Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 1. Quantitative computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18, 224–231 (2003) 33. Romanos GE, Toh CG, Siar CH, Wicht H, Yacoob H, Nentwig GH: Bone-implant interface around titanium implants under different loading conditions: a histomorphometrical analysis in the Macaca fascicularis monkey. J Periodontol 74, 1483–1490 (2003)
Interventional Medicine & Applied Science
Primary stability and osseointegration
34. Chong L, Khocht A, Suzuki JB, Gaughan J: Effect of implant design on initial stability of tapered implants. J Oral Implantol 35, 130–135 (2009) 35. Delaunay CP, Kapandji AI: Acetabular screw rings and surface treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 130–141 (1997) 36. Teerlinck J, Quirynen M, Darius P, van Steenberghe D: Periotest: an objective clinical diagnosis of bone apposition toward implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6, 55–61 (1991) 37. Dhert WJ, Verheyen CC, Braak LH, de Wijn JR, Klein CP, de Groot K, Rozing PM: A finite element analysis of the push-out test: Influence of test conditions. J Biomed Mater Res 26, 119– 130 (1992) 38. Shapoff CA: Clinical advantages of tapered root form dental implants. Compend Contin Educ Dent 23, 42–44, 46, 48 passim (2002) 39. O’Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N: Influence of implant taper on the primary and secondary stability of osseointegrated titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 15, 474–480 (2004) 40. Garber DA, Salama H, Salama MA: Two-stage versus onestage – is there really a controversy? J Periodontol 72, 417–421 (2001) 41. Guizzardi S, Galli C, Martini D, Belletti S, Tinti A, Raspanti M, Taddei P, Ruggeri A, Scandroglio R: Different titanium surface treatment influences human mandibular osteoblast response. J Periodontol 75, 273–282 (2004) 42. Franchi M, Bacchelli B, Giavaresi G, De Pasquale V, Martini D, Fini M, Giardino R, Ruggeri A: Influence of different implant surfaces on peri-implant osteogenesis: Histomorphometric analysis in sheep. J Periodontol 78, 879–888 (2007) 43. Crespi R, Capparé P, Gherlone E, Romanos GE: Immediate versus delayed loading of dental implants placed in fresh extraction sockets in the maxillary esthetic zone: A clinical comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23, 753–758 (2008) 44. Borsari V, Giavaresi G, Fini M, Torricelli P, Salito A, Chiesa R, Chiusoli L, Volpert A, Rimondini L, Giardino R: Physical characterization of different-roughness titanium surfaces, with and without hydroxyapatite coating, and their effect on human osteoblastlike cells. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 75, 359–368 (2005) 45. Veis AA, Papadimitriou S, Trisi P, Tsirlis AT, Parissis NA, Kenealy JN: Osseointegration of Osseotite® and machined-surfaced titanium implants in membrane-covered critical-sized defects: A histologic and histometric study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 18, 153–160 (2007) 46. Hallman M: A prospective study of treatment of severely resorbed maxillae with narrow nonsubmerged implants: Results after 1 year of loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16, 731–736 (2001) 47. Degidi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A: Immediate restoration of smalldiameter implants in cases of partial posterior edentulism: A 4-year case series. J Periodontol 80, 1006–1012 (2009) 48. Hansson S, Werke M: The implant thread as a retention element in cortical bone: The effect of thread size and thread profile: a finite element study. J Biomech 36, 1247–1258 (2003) 49. Romanos GE, Nentwig GH: Immediate functional loading in the maxilla using implants with platform switching: Five-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24, 1106–1112 (2009) 50. Friberg B, Ekestubbe A, Mellström D, Sennerby L: Brånemark implants and osteoporosis: A clinical exploratory study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 3, 50–56 (2001)
Interventional Medicine & Applied Science
167
51. Friberg B, Ekestubbe A, Sennerby L: Clinical outcome of Brånemark system implants of various diameters: A retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17, 671–677 (2002) 52. Summers RB: A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: The osteotome technique. Compendium 15, 152, 154–156, 158 passim; quiz 162 (1994) 53. Crespi R, Capparè P, Gherlone E, Romanos GE: Immediate occlusal loading of implants placed in fresh sockets after tooth extraction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22, 955–962 (2007) 54. Hui E, Chow J, Li D, Liu J, Wat P, Law H: Immediate provisional for single-tooth implant replacement with Brånemark system: Preliminary report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 3, 79–86 (2001) 55. Lorenzoni M, Pertl C, Zhang K, Wimmer G, Wegscheider WA: Immediate loading of single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla. Preliminary results after one year. Clin Oral Implants Res 14, 180–187 (2003) 56. Olive J, Aparicio C: Periotest method as a measure of osseointegrated oral implant stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 5, 390–400 (1990) 57. Trisi P, Perfetti G, Baldoni E, Berardi D, Colagiovanni M, Scogna G: Implant micromotion is related to peak insertion torque and bone density. Clin Oral Implants Res 20, 467–471 (2009) 58. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Jeong Y, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T: Resonance frequency and removal torque analysis of implants with turned and anodized surface oxides. Clin Oral Implants Res 13, 252–259 (2002) 59. Ertugrul AS, Tekin Y, Alpaslan NZ, Bozoglan A, Sahin H, Dikilitas A: Comparison of peri-implant crevicular fluid levels of adrenomedullin and human beta defensins 1 and 2 from mandibular implants with different implant stability quotient levels in nonsmoker patients. J Periodontal Res (2013) 60. Ramakrishna R, Nayar S: Clinical assessment of primary stability of endosseous implants placed in the incisor region, using resonance frequency analysis methodology: An in vivo study. Indian J Dent Res 18, 168–172 (2007) 61. Hammerle CH, van Steenberghe D: The first EAO Consensus Conference 16–19 February 2006, Pfaffikon, Switzerland. Clin Oral Implants Res 17, Suppl 2, 1 (2006) 62. Perren SM: Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: Choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84, 1093–1110 (2002) 63. Chang PK, Chen YC, Huang CC, Lu WH, Chen YC, Tsai HH: Distribution of micromotion in implants and alveolar bone with different thread profiles in immediate loading: A finite element study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27, e96–101 (2012) 64. Sakka S, Coulthard P: Implant failure: Etiology and complications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 16, e42–44 (2011) 65. Pilliar RM, Lee JM, Maniatopoulos C: Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res (208), 108–113 (1986) 66. Brunski JB: Avoid pitfalls of overloading and micromotion of intraosseous implants. Dent Implantol Update 4, 77–81 (1993) 67. Søballe K, Hansen ES, Brockstedt-Rasmussen H, Bünger C: Hydroxyapatite coating converts fibrous tissue to bone around loaded implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75, 270–278 (1993) 68. Javed F, Romanos GE: The role of primary stability for successful immediate loading of dental implants. A literature review. J Dent 38, 612–620 (2010)
ISSN 2061-1617 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
Interventional Medicine & Applied Science, Vol. 5 (4), pp. 162–167 (2013)
Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: Factors of influence and evaluation FAWAD JAVED1,*, HAMEEDA BASHIR AHMED2, ROBERTO CRESPI3, GEORGIOS E. ROMANOS4 1
Eng. A.B. Research Chair for Growth Factors and Bone Regeneration, 3D Imaging and Biomechanical Laboratory, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 2 Department of Dentistry, Al-Farabi Dental College, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 3 Department of Dentistry, Vita Salute University, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy 4 Department of Dental Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA *Corresponding author: Dr. Fawad Javed; Eng. A.B. Research Chair for Growth Factors and Bone Regeneration, 3D Imaging and Biomechanical Laboratory, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; E-mail: [email protected] (Received: September 24, 2013; Revised manuscript received: September 29, 2013; Accepted: September 30, 2013) Abstract: A secure implant primary (mechanical) stability is positively associated with a successful implant integration and long-term successful clinical outcome. Therefore, it is essential to assess the initial stability at different time-points to ensure a successful osseointegration. The present study critically reviews the factors that may play a role in achieving a successful initial stability in dental implants. Databases were searched from 1983 up to and including October 2013 using different combinations of various keywords. Bone quality and quantity, implant geometry, and surgical technique adopted may significantly influence primary stability and overall success rate of dental implants. Keywords: dental implants, bone density, implant surface topography, osseointegration, primary stability, surgical technique
elling phenomena determine the secondary (biological) stability to the implant [9, 10]. A secure primary stability is positively associated with a secondary stability [11]. Extent of implant stability may also depend on the situation of surrounding tissues [3, 12]. Bone quantity and quality, implant geometry, and surgical technique adopted are also among the predominant clinical factors that affect primary stability [13]. Therefore, it is essential to assess the implant stability at different time-points in order to ensure a successful osseointegration. In this context, the objective of the present review was to assess the factors that may play a role in achieving a successful primary stability in dental implants.
Introduction Traditionally, endosseous implants are loaded once bone healing has occurred, which takes approximately 3 months in the mandible and 6 months in the maxilla [1, 2]. Today, modifications of this treatment protocol using immediate loading of implants are an eminent and acknowledged treatment strategy for the rehabilitation of missing teeth [3–5]. Histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of immediately loaded implants recovered from humans has also shown a high degree of bone-to-implant contact percentages [6, 7]. However, for any implant procedure, successful implant integration is a prerequisite criterion, which depends on a series of procedure-related and patient-dependent measures [8]. Successful osseointegration from the clinical standpoint is a measure of implant stability, which occurs after implant integration [9]. Two terms, such as the primary and the secondary implant stability, are related to implant therapy. Primary stability is associated with the mechanical engagement of an implant with the surrounding bone, whereas bone regeneration and remod-
DOI: 10.1556/IMAS.5.2013.4.3
Materials and Methods The National Library of Medicine, Washington DC (MEDLINE–PubMed) was searched for appropriate articles addressing the focused question. Databases were searched from 1983 up to and including October 2013 using the following terms in different combinations: “bone,” “dental,” “design,” “implant,” “immediate
162
ISSN 2061-1617 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
Primary stability and osseointegration
loading,” “implant length,” implant diameter,” “maxilla,” “mandible,” “narrow implant,” “osseointegration,” “primary stability,” “surgical technique,” and “wide implant.” The eligibility criteria were based on human and experimental studies, use of control group, articles published only in English language, and reference list of potentially related original and review studies. The second step was to hand-search the reference lists of original and review studies that were found to be relevant in the first step. After final selection of the papers, those that fulfilled the selection criteria were processed for data extraction. The structure of the present literature review was customized to mainly summarize the relevant information.
Pre-requisites for a successful primary stability Primary stability is accomplished when the implant is placed in the bone in such a position that it is “wellseated.” This allows the implant to mechanically adapt to the host bone until secondary stability is achieved [13]. Impaired primary implant stability has been shown to jeopardize the osseointegration process [14]. The success of this adaptation, however, depends on several factors, including the density and dimension of the bone surrounding the implant, the implant design, and surgical technique used (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.
Factors affecting implant stability
Interventional Medicine & Applied Science
Bone density and quality The significance of bone density and its association with implant dentistry has existed for more than two decades. Several classifications regarding bone density have been recommended as shown in Fig. 2. Bone quality is often referred to as the amount (and their topographic relationship) of cortical and cancellous bone in which the recipient site is drilled. A poor bone quantity and quality have been indicated as the main risk factors for implant failure as it may be associated with excessive bone resorption and impairment in the healing process compared with higher density bone [15–17]. Clinical studies have reported dental implants in the mandible to have higher survival rates compared to those in the maxilla, especially for the posterior maxilla [18, 19]. Bone quality has been considered as the basic cause of this difference. In the posterior maxilla, there is commonly thinner cortical bone combined with thicker trabecular bone compared to the mandible [20, 21]. Clinically, a poor degree of bone mineralization or limited bone resistance is observed in bones with poor densities, which are often referred to as “soft bones” [20, 22]. It has been shown that achieving optimum primary stability in soft bones is difficult and is also related to a higher implant failure rate for the implants placed in such bones [15, 23]. Turkyilmaz et al. [24] reported the bone quality around the implant to be superior in the mandible compared to the maxilla. A clinical study [25] with 158 implant sites from 85 patients indicated a strong correlation between bone density and dental implant stability. Results by Miyamoto et al. [26] demonstrated that dental implant stability is positively associated with the thickness of cortical bone thickness. In contrast to the previous studies, additional studies in the posterior mandible showed high failure rates due to the poor bone quality as well as other additional factors [27, 28]. Computerized tomography (CT) has been regarded as the best radiographic method for analyzing the morphological and qualitative analysis of the residual bone [29–31]. It is also a valuable means for evaluating the relative distribution of cortical and cancellous bone [32]. However, the density of the surrounding bone seems to play an essential role in high occlusal forces, and therefore, the high bone-to-implant (BIC) percentages of a thin, “carpet”-like bone in contact with the implant surface seems to be not clinically significant compared to lower rate of BIC in a thick bone. Intraoperative surgical techniques, such as bone condensing, undersizing the osteotomy, improve the bone density and increase the primary (mechanical) stability. In contrast to that, loading effects on the periimplant bone under delayed or immediate loading conditions influence the secondary (biological) stability increasing the percentage of the bone-to-implant (BIC) contacts [27, 33].
163
ISSN 2061-1617 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
Javed et al.
Fig. 2.
Bone dentistry classifications
Implant design Implant design refers to the three-dimensional structure of an implant with all the components and features that characterize it. It has been reported that the implant design is a vital parameter for attaining primary stability [34]. The texture of an implant’s surface can influence the bone–implant interface. Studies [6, 33, 35] have demonstrated a relationship between implant design and osseointegration. Implants of varying designs, placed in different bone qualities, reach various degrees of stability, which may determine their future clinical performance [36, 37]. Originally, implants were fabricated in a parallel design; however, they were not appropriate for most applications. Tapered implants were later introduced to enhance aesthetics and assist implant placement between adjacent natural teeth [38]. The hypothesis behind using tapered implants was to provide a degree of compression of the cortical bone in an implant site with inadequate bone [39]. Cylindrical wide body implants increase the risk of labial bone perforation especially in thin alveolar ridges due to presence of buccal concavities, whereas the decrease in diameter of the tapered implants toward the apical region accommodates for the labial concavity [40]. However, according to Chong et al. [34], if bone quality and quantity are optimal, then they may compensate for implant design inadequacy.
ISSN 2061-1617 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
Implant surface characteristics and diameter have also been shown to influence primary stability. Rough implant surfaces present a larger surface area and allow a firmer mechanical link to the surrounding tissues [11]. In vitro studies [41, 42] have shown that sandblasted implant surfaces promote peri-implant osteogenesis by enhancing the growth and metabolic activity of osteoblasts [41, 42]. Studies [6, 43, 44] have shown that surface topography and roughness positively influence the healing process by promoting favorable cellular responses and cell surface interactions. In poor bone quality sites, implants with an acid-etched surfaces can achieve a significantly higher bone-to-implant contact compared to implants with a machined surface [45]. Clinical studies have shown that implants with smaller diameters (less than 3.0 millimeters) provide sufficient primary stability in cases with a limited bone volume [46, 47]. It is accepted that all implants display some extent of bone loss after osseointegration and through time of function. It has been claimed that the introduction of microthreads or “retention grooves” at the neck of the implant may assist in reducing distributing stress and reducing the extent of bone loss following the implant installation [48]. In the reality, crestal bone preservation can be associated with the surgical technique and the presence of platform switching [49]. In addition, the progressive thread design seems to decrease the compression of the crestal bone preserving in that way the crestal bone loss [49].
164
Interventional Medicine & Applied Science
Primary stability and osseointegration
Surgical technique Besides the quantity and quality of bone and morphology of the implant, the surgical technique adopted also influences primary stability. Therefore, the undersized drilling technique was introduced to locally optimize bone density and subsequently improve primary stability. Numerous modifications in surgical technique have been described which might assist in enhancing primary stability of dental implants. Some studies [50, 51] recommend the use of a final drill diameter which is smaller than the diameter of the implant; however, Summers [52] recommended the technique of bone condensing, where, after using the pilot drill, the cancellous bone is pushed aside with “condensers” (osteotomes), thus, increasing the density of the surrounding bone, increasing in that way the initial implant stability. It has been reported high survival rates with the immediate loading of dental implants, which are attributed to high primary stability [43, 53]. Some studies have also preferred insertion torque as a determinant of implant stability, and torque values of 32, 35, or 40 Ncm and higher have been chosen as thresholds for immediate loading [54, 55]. This threshold seems to be important due to the selection of implant–abutment connections, which have the need of this torque to engage the abutment to the implant body via the fixation screw based on the manufacturer guidelines. Also implants placed in a weak bone (poor bone quality) may be loaded immediately and demonstrate high survival rates when the final torque in the implant–abutment connection is lower, i.e., nearly 15–20 Ncm [13].
Methods of evaluation of the primary stability Two methods are usually employed to measure the clinical stability of an implant, namely, the Periotest (PT) and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) measurement using Osstell device. The PT gauges temporal contact of the tip of the instrument during repetitive percussions on the implant. PT values include a narrow range over the scale of the instrument and, thus, provide comparatively less sensitive information concerning implant stability [56]. It has been suggested that the measurement of the moment of force or torque (required for seating an implant in bone) can also be used to measure the primary stability of an implant [57]. The RFA device measures the resonance frequency of a transductor attached to the implant body, which is stimulated by different frequencies. According to a study by Sul et al. [58], RFA is a reliable indicator for identifying implant stability with assurance. This
Interventional Medicine & Applied Science
instrument has a graphic display panel showing the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values, which indicate the firmness at the implant–tissue interface [59]. ISQ values greater than 65 have been regarded as most favorable for implant stability, whereas ISQ values below 45 indicate a poor primary stability [60]. However, there is no justification for a routine clinical use of the PT and RFA techniques [61], as a disadvantage of the ISQ evaluation technique is that the value is dependent on the insertion of the magnet (transducer) to the implant. When the transducer is not well screwed on the implant body (without to use the final insertion torque), a low ISQ value has been evaluated. In addition, the ISQ value is possible to be performed only before the final abutment is connected and cannot be performed with the prosthetic restoration. Further modifications of this technique are needed in order to be able to evaluate the implant stability in a precise and clinical reliable way.
Effect of micromotions on primary stability When the ends of a fractured long bone are reduced, then there should be absolutely no movement between the fragments to endorse fracture healing [62]. This happens because movements, even at the micrometer range, can induce a stress or strain that may hinder the formation of new cells in the gap. The same phenomenon is applied at the bone-to-implant interface [63]. The induction of micromotion during functional loading may primarily be responsible for failure of osseointegration and ultimately implant loss [64]. Micromotions above 50–100 micrometers may negatively influence osseointegration and bone remodelling by forming fibrous tissues and inducing bone resorption at the bone-to-implant interface [65–67]. Therefore, a high initial (mechanical) stability is essential for a successful osseointegration of dental implants. Studies [27, 33, 68] have reported that a well-controlled micromotion positively influenced bone formation; therefore, more advanced clinical conditions, like immediate functional loading of implants placed in healed ridges or also fresh extraction sockets, seem to improve the peri-implant bone density and improve the implant integration.
Conclusions This literature review highlights the importance of achieving a successful primary stability for successful implant integration. Bone quality and quantity, implant geometry, and surgical technique adopted may significantly influence implant initial stability and overall success rate of dental implants.
165
ISSN 2061-1617 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
Javed et al.
*** Funding sources: The authors thank the College of Dentistry Research Centre and Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia for funding this research project (Project # FR 0075). Authors’ contributions: FJ wrote the manuscript and revised it prior to submission, HBA performed the literature search and revised the manuscript for English vocabulary. RC wrote the manuscript and revised it prior to submission. GER designed and mentored the study, wrote the manuscript and revised it prior to submission. Conflict of interest: None.
References 1. Branemark PI: Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 50, 399–410 (1983) 2. de Freitas RM, Susin C, Spin-Neto R, Marcantonio C, Wikesjö UME, Pereira LAVD, Marcantonio E Jr: Horizontal ridge augmentation of the atrophic anterior maxilla using rhBMP-2/ACS or autogenous bone grafts: A proof-of-concept randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 40, 968–975 (2013) 3. Javed F, Romanos GE: Impact of diabetes mellitus and glycemic control on the osseointegration of dental implants: a systematic literature review. J Periodontol 80, 1719–1730 (2009) 4. Romanos GE: Treatment of advanced periodontal destruction with immediately loaded implants and simultaneous bone augmentation: a case report. J Periodontol 74, 255–261 (2003) 5. Penarrocha M, Boronat A, Garcia B: Immediate loading of immediate mandibular implants with a full-arch fixed prosthesis: a preliminary study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67, 1286–1293 (2009) 6. Romanos GE, Johansson CB: Immediate loading with complete implant-supported restorations in an edentulous heavy smoker: Histologic and histomorphometric analyses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20, 282–290 (2005) 7. Romanos GE, Testori T, Degidi M, Piattelli A: Histologic and histomorphometric findings from retrieved, immediately occlusally loaded implants in humans. J Periodontol 76, 1823–1832 (2005) 8. Beer A, Gahleitner A, Holm A, Tschabitscher M, Homolka P: Correlation of insertion torques with bone mineral density from dental quantitative CT in the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 14, 616–620 (2003) 9. Natali AN, Carniel EL, Pavan PG: Investigation of viscoelastoplastic response of bone tissue in oral implants press fit process. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 91, 868–875 (2009) 10. Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Romanos G, Tarnow D: Clinical recommendations for avoiding and managing surgical complications associated with implant dentistry: A review. J Periodontol 79, 1317–1329 (2008) 11. Davies JE: Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J Prosthodont 11, 391–401 (1998) 12. Javed F, Almas K: Osseointegration of dental implants in patients undergoing bisphosphonate treatment: A literature review. J Periodontol 81, 479–484 (2010) 13. Romanos GE: Bone quality and the immediate loading of implants – Critical aspects based on literature, research, and clinical experience. Implant Dent 18, 203–209 (2009) 14. Roos J, Sennerby L, Albrektsson T: An update on the clinical documentation on currently used bone anchored endosseous oral implants. Dent Update 24, 194–200 (1997)
ISSN 2061-1617 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
166
15. Jaffin RA, Berman CL: The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: A 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 62, 2–4 (1991) 16. Ulm C, Kneissel M, Schedle A, Solar P, Matejka M, Schneider B, Donath K: Characteristic features of trabecular bone in edentulous maxillae. Clin Oral Implants Res 10, 459–467 (1999) 17. Herrmann I, Lekholm U, Holm S, Kultje C: Evaluation of patient and implant characteristics as potential prognostic factors for oral implant failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20, 220–230 (2005) 18. Jemt T, Stenport V: Implant treatment with fixed prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part 2: Prosthetic technique and clinical maintenance in two patient cohorts restored between 1986 and 1987 and 15 years later. Int J Prosthodont 24, 356–362 (2011) 19. Jemt T, Stenport V, Friberg B: Implant treatment with fixed prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part 1: Implants and biologic response in two patient cohorts restored between 1986 and 1987 and 15 years later. Int J Prosthodont 24, 345–355 (2011) 20. Jacobs R: Preoperative radiologic planning of implant surgery in compromised patients. Periodontol 2000 33, 12–25 (2003) 21. Shibli JA, Mangano C, Mangano F, Rodrigues JA, Cassoni A, Bechara K, Ferreia JD, Dottore AM, Iezzi G, Piattelli A: Boneto-implant contact around immediately loaded direct laser metalforming transitional implants in human posterior maxilla. J Periodontol 84, 732–737 (2013) 22. Lazzara R, Siddiqui AA, Binon P, Feldman SA, Weiner R, Phillips R, Gonshor A: Retrospective multicenter analysis of 3i endosseous dental implants placed over a five-year period. Clin Oral Implants Res 7, 73–83 (1996) 23. Johns RB, Jemt T, Heath MR, Hutton JE, McKenna S, McNamara DC, van Steenberghe D, Taylor R, Watson RM, Herrmann I: A multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 7, 513–522 (1992) 24. Turkyilmaz I, Tozum TF, Tumer C: Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography. J Oral Rehabil 34, 267–272 (2007) 25. Turkyilmaz I, McGlumphy EA: Influence of bone density on implant stability parameters and implant success: A retrospective clinical study. BMC Oral Health 8, 32 (2008) 26. Miyamoto I, Tsuboi Y, Wada E, Suwa H, Iizuka T: Influence of cortical bone thickness and implant length on implant stability at the time of surgery – Clinical, prospective, biomechanical, and imaging study. Bone 37, 776–780 (2005) 27. Schwartz-Arad D, Samet N: Single tooth replacement of missing molars: A retrospective study of 78 implants. J Periodontol 70, 449–454 (1999) 28. Becktor JP, Eckert SE, Isaksson S, Keller EE: The influence of mandibular dentition on implant failures in bone-grafted edentulous maxillae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17, 69–77 (2002) 29. Turkyilmaz I, Tozum TF, Tumer C, Ozbek EN: Assessment of correlation between computerized tomography values of the bone, and maximum torque and resonance frequency values at dental implant placement. J Oral Rehabil 33, 881–888 (2006) 30. Lee S, Gantes B, Riggs M, Crigger M: Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 3. Bone quality evaluation during osteotomy and implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22, 208–212 (2007) 31. Al-Askar M, O’Neill R, Stark PC, Griffin T, Javed F, Al-Hezaimi K: Effect of single and contiguous teeth extractions on alveolar bone remodeling: A study in dogs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 15, 569–575 (2013) 32. Shahlaie M, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Crigger M: Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 1. Quantitative computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18, 224–231 (2003) 33. Romanos GE, Toh CG, Siar CH, Wicht H, Yacoob H, Nentwig GH: Bone-implant interface around titanium implants under different loading conditions: a histomorphometrical analysis in the Macaca fascicularis monkey. J Periodontol 74, 1483–1490 (2003)
Interventional Medicine & Applied Science
Primary stability and osseointegration
34. Chong L, Khocht A, Suzuki JB, Gaughan J: Effect of implant design on initial stability of tapered implants. J Oral Implantol 35, 130–135 (2009) 35. Delaunay CP, Kapandji AI: Acetabular screw rings and surface treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 130–141 (1997) 36. Teerlinck J, Quirynen M, Darius P, van Steenberghe D: Periotest: an objective clinical diagnosis of bone apposition toward implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6, 55–61 (1991) 37. Dhert WJ, Verheyen CC, Braak LH, de Wijn JR, Klein CP, de Groot K, Rozing PM: A finite element analysis of the push-out test: Influence of test conditions. J Biomed Mater Res 26, 119– 130 (1992) 38. Shapoff CA: Clinical advantages of tapered root form dental implants. Compend Contin Educ Dent 23, 42–44, 46, 48 passim (2002) 39. O’Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N: Influence of implant taper on the primary and secondary stability of osseointegrated titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 15, 474–480 (2004) 40. Garber DA, Salama H, Salama MA: Two-stage versus onestage – is there really a controversy? J Periodontol 72, 417–421 (2001) 41. Guizzardi S, Galli C, Martini D, Belletti S, Tinti A, Raspanti M, Taddei P, Ruggeri A, Scandroglio R: Different titanium surface treatment influences human mandibular osteoblast response. J Periodontol 75, 273–282 (2004) 42. Franchi M, Bacchelli B, Giavaresi G, De Pasquale V, Martini D, Fini M, Giardino R, Ruggeri A: Influence of different implant surfaces on peri-implant osteogenesis: Histomorphometric analysis in sheep. J Periodontol 78, 879–888 (2007) 43. Crespi R, Capparé P, Gherlone E, Romanos GE: Immediate versus delayed loading of dental implants placed in fresh extraction sockets in the maxillary esthetic zone: A clinical comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23, 753–758 (2008) 44. Borsari V, Giavaresi G, Fini M, Torricelli P, Salito A, Chiesa R, Chiusoli L, Volpert A, Rimondini L, Giardino R: Physical characterization of different-roughness titanium surfaces, with and without hydroxyapatite coating, and their effect on human osteoblastlike cells. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 75, 359–368 (2005) 45. Veis AA, Papadimitriou S, Trisi P, Tsirlis AT, Parissis NA, Kenealy JN: Osseointegration of Osseotite® and machined-surfaced titanium implants in membrane-covered critical-sized defects: A histologic and histometric study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 18, 153–160 (2007) 46. Hallman M: A prospective study of treatment of severely resorbed maxillae with narrow nonsubmerged implants: Results after 1 year of loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16, 731–736 (2001) 47. Degidi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A: Immediate restoration of smalldiameter implants in cases of partial posterior edentulism: A 4-year case series. J Periodontol 80, 1006–1012 (2009) 48. Hansson S, Werke M: The implant thread as a retention element in cortical bone: The effect of thread size and thread profile: a finite element study. J Biomech 36, 1247–1258 (2003) 49. Romanos GE, Nentwig GH: Immediate functional loading in the maxilla using implants with platform switching: Five-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24, 1106–1112 (2009) 50. Friberg B, Ekestubbe A, Mellström D, Sennerby L: Brånemark implants and osteoporosis: A clinical exploratory study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 3, 50–56 (2001)
Interventional Medicine & Applied Science
167
51. Friberg B, Ekestubbe A, Sennerby L: Clinical outcome of Brånemark system implants of various diameters: A retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17, 671–677 (2002) 52. Summers RB: A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: The osteotome technique. Compendium 15, 152, 154–156, 158 passim; quiz 162 (1994) 53. Crespi R, Capparè P, Gherlone E, Romanos GE: Immediate occlusal loading of implants placed in fresh sockets after tooth extraction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22, 955–962 (2007) 54. Hui E, Chow J, Li D, Liu J, Wat P, Law H: Immediate provisional for single-tooth implant replacement with Brånemark system: Preliminary report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 3, 79–86 (2001) 55. Lorenzoni M, Pertl C, Zhang K, Wimmer G, Wegscheider WA: Immediate loading of single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla. Preliminary results after one year. Clin Oral Implants Res 14, 180–187 (2003) 56. Olive J, Aparicio C: Periotest method as a measure of osseointegrated oral implant stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 5, 390–400 (1990) 57. Trisi P, Perfetti G, Baldoni E, Berardi D, Colagiovanni M, Scogna G: Implant micromotion is related to peak insertion torque and bone density. Clin Oral Implants Res 20, 467–471 (2009) 58. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Jeong Y, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T: Resonance frequency and removal torque analysis of implants with turned and anodized surface oxides. Clin Oral Implants Res 13, 252–259 (2002) 59. Ertugrul AS, Tekin Y, Alpaslan NZ, Bozoglan A, Sahin H, Dikilitas A: Comparison of peri-implant crevicular fluid levels of adrenomedullin and human beta defensins 1 and 2 from mandibular implants with different implant stability quotient levels in nonsmoker patients. J Periodontal Res (2013) 60. Ramakrishna R, Nayar S: Clinical assessment of primary stability of endosseous implants placed in the incisor region, using resonance frequency analysis methodology: An in vivo study. Indian J Dent Res 18, 168–172 (2007) 61. Hammerle CH, van Steenberghe D: The first EAO Consensus Conference 16–19 February 2006, Pfaffikon, Switzerland. Clin Oral Implants Res 17, Suppl 2, 1 (2006) 62. Perren SM: Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: Choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84, 1093–1110 (2002) 63. Chang PK, Chen YC, Huang CC, Lu WH, Chen YC, Tsai HH: Distribution of micromotion in implants and alveolar bone with different thread profiles in immediate loading: A finite element study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27, e96–101 (2012) 64. Sakka S, Coulthard P: Implant failure: Etiology and complications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 16, e42–44 (2011) 65. Pilliar RM, Lee JM, Maniatopoulos C: Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res (208), 108–113 (1986) 66. Brunski JB: Avoid pitfalls of overloading and micromotion of intraosseous implants. Dent Implantol Update 4, 77–81 (1993) 67. Søballe K, Hansen ES, Brockstedt-Rasmussen H, Bünger C: Hydroxyapatite coating converts fibrous tissue to bone around loaded implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75, 270–278 (1993) 68. Javed F, Romanos GE: The role of primary stability for successful immediate loading of dental implants. A literature review. J Dent 38, 612–620 (2010)
ISSN 2061-1617 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
