Influence of short implants geometry on primary stability.

BACKGROUND: A correct design is needed in short implants to improve primary stability (PS) in low quality bone. This study aimed to compare PS of double thread and single thread short implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty implants with single thread design (PHI/SHORT-I) and 30 implants with double thread design (PHIA/SHORT-I) (Radhex®, Inmet-Garnick S.A., Guadalajara, Spain) were placed in 30 randomly selected bovine ribs. PS was assessed in implant stability quotients (ISQ) and periotest values (PV) with Osstell™ and Periotest® devices, respectively. Computed tomographies of the ribs were taken and bone quality was evaluated in Hounsfield Units (HU) using Ez3D Plus software (Vatech Co., Korea). Only implants placed in low quality bone according to Misch and Kircos classification were selected (D3 bone: 350-850 HU; and D4 bone: 150-350 HU). Ten implants were not included in the study for being placed in D1 and D2 bone. Finally, 50 implants were selected: 17 and 9 PHI/SHORT-I in D3 and D4 bone respectively, and 15 and 9 PHIA/SHORT-I in D3 and D4 bone respectively. RESULTS: The one-way ANOVA showed statistically significant differences in ISQ (61.35 ± 4.77 in PHI/SHORT-I and 66.43 ± 4.49 in PHIA/SHORT-I, P<0.005) and PV (-2.76 ± 0.8 and -4.11 ± 1.24 respectively, P<0.005) between two implant designs in D3 bone, and statistically significant differences in ISQ (53.44 ± 3.34 in PHI/SHORT-I and 60.56 ± 1.53 in PHIA/SHORT-I, P<0.0001) and PV (1.13 ± 0.95 and -2.5 ± 0.61 respectively, P<0.0001) between two groups in D4 bone. CONCLUSIONS: Double thread design short implants resulted to have higher PS in comparison with single thread design short implants in D3 and D4 bone.

Implant stability using piezoelectric bone surgery compared with conventional drilling: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the primary and secondary stability of dental implants placed at sites prepared with piezoelectric bone surgery (PBS) and conventional drilling (CD). The PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were searched without date or language restriction up to June 2017. Controlled clinical trials in which each patient received implants placed at sites prepared with both PBS and CD were selected. Implant stability had to be measured on day 0 and during the osseointegration period. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A meta-analysis was performed to compare primary stability (on day 0) and secondary stability (after 2 and 3months) between the two groups. The studies included were determined to have a high risk of bias. There was no significant difference between the two groups for primary stability (on day 0) (P=0.51). After 2 and 3months, secondary stability was statistically higher in implants placed with PBS preparation (P=0.04 and P=0.01, respectively). The implant survival rate was 97.5% in the CD group and 100% in the PBS group. PBS preparation improves secondary stability after 2 and 3months in comparison to CD, with similar implant survival rates. Further studies are needed to determine whether implant osseointegration periods could be shortened with PBS preparation.