Stability of loaded and unloaded implants with different surfaces.
Standard
Stability of loaded and unloaded implants with different surfaces. / Nergiz, Ibrahim; Arpak, Nejat; Bostanci, Hamid; Scorziello, Thomas M; Schmage, Petra.
in: INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, Jahrgang 24, Nr. 2, 2, 2009, S. 289-298.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Stability of loaded and unloaded implants with different surfaces.
AU - Nergiz, Ibrahim
AU - Arpak, Nejat
AU - Bostanci, Hamid
AU - Scorziello, Thomas M
AU - Schmage, Petra
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - PURPOSE: To compare the torsional strengths and the effects of functional loading on five different implant surface structures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This in vivo longitudinal study of 9 months' duration examined osseointegration in 180 stepped cylindric implants placed into the mandibles of 18 healthy sheepdogs. Implants with five different surface structures were placed (n = 36 in each group): (1) smooth surface; (2) deep profile structure (DPS); (3) titanium plasma sprayed (TPS); (4) hydroxyapatite coated; and (5) sol-gel hydroxyapatite coated (SGHA). All implants were investigated under standardized conditions. At uncovering (3 months), half the implants were loaded with prefabricated crowns for 6 months, and the other half remained unloaded. Removal torque values were evaluated at 3, 6, and 9 months after implant placement. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance and Scheffé correction (alpha <.05). RESULTS: All smooth-surface and SGHA implants failed in succession during the fourth and ninth months of the study. After 3 months the removal torque resistance of DPS, TPS, and hydroxyapatite-coated implants was significantly higher (P <.001) than that seen in the other two groups. Initially, the removal torque resistance of unloaded hydroxyapatite-coated implants was superior, and the decrease during the observation period was not significant. The increase in removal torque resistance under functional loading was not significant for the DPS implants. A significant increase was found in removal torque resistance for the loaded TPS implants (P <.05). The unloaded DPS and TPS implants showed no change in removal torque levels after the closed healing period of 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Successful osseointegration was achieved with DPS, TPS, and hydroxyapatite-coated implants, and smooth-surface and SGHA implants failed. Removal torque resistance was enhanced with controlled functional loading.
AB - PURPOSE: To compare the torsional strengths and the effects of functional loading on five different implant surface structures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This in vivo longitudinal study of 9 months' duration examined osseointegration in 180 stepped cylindric implants placed into the mandibles of 18 healthy sheepdogs. Implants with five different surface structures were placed (n = 36 in each group): (1) smooth surface; (2) deep profile structure (DPS); (3) titanium plasma sprayed (TPS); (4) hydroxyapatite coated; and (5) sol-gel hydroxyapatite coated (SGHA). All implants were investigated under standardized conditions. At uncovering (3 months), half the implants were loaded with prefabricated crowns for 6 months, and the other half remained unloaded. Removal torque values were evaluated at 3, 6, and 9 months after implant placement. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance and Scheffé correction (alpha <.05). RESULTS: All smooth-surface and SGHA implants failed in succession during the fourth and ninth months of the study. After 3 months the removal torque resistance of DPS, TPS, and hydroxyapatite-coated implants was significantly higher (P <.001) than that seen in the other two groups. Initially, the removal torque resistance of unloaded hydroxyapatite-coated implants was superior, and the decrease during the observation period was not significant. The increase in removal torque resistance under functional loading was not significant for the DPS implants. A significant increase was found in removal torque resistance for the loaded TPS implants (P <.05). The unloaded DPS and TPS implants showed no change in removal torque levels after the closed healing period of 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Successful osseointegration was achieved with DPS, TPS, and hydroxyapatite-coated implants, and smooth-surface and SGHA implants failed. Removal torque resistance was enhanced with controlled functional loading.
M3 - SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz
VL - 24
SP - 289
EP - 298
JO - INT J ORAL MAX IMPL
JF - INT J ORAL MAX IMPL
SN - 0882-2786
IS - 2
M1 - 2
ER -