RESUMO
ABSTRACT Introduction: Implant stability can be measured at the moment of implant placement or once the osseointegration process is in progress. Many factors should be considered, including bone quality, osteotomy preparation, implant design, implant surface enhancement, and implant length and diameter. Objective: Determine the influence of implant length on primary and secondary stability in type II and type III bones using resonance frequency analysis method. Methods: A prospective study was conducted in the department of Oral maxillofacial Implantology at the School of Dentistry of the University of Chile between April 2006 and June 2007. 38 screw type implants were placed in the maxilla and mandible, in type II and type III bones. 21 implants had an average contact area of 237 mm2 including 2 sizes (3.75mm and a length of 13mm and 15mm) and 17 implants had an average contact area of 129 mm2 (diameter of 3.75mm and a length of 7mm). Implant primary stability was measured by the Implant Stability Quotient value. Resonance frequency measurements were recorded using Osstell™ Mentor. Secondary implant stability was recorded between 4 to 6 months after the implant placement. Results: For implants with an average contact area of 237 mm2 the stability 1 average value was 71,37 and the stability 2 average value was 66,6. For implants with an average contact area of 129 mm2 the stability 1 average value was 67,47 and the stability 2 average value was 68,08. Conclusion: Implant length does not influence primary and secondary stability in type II and type III bones.
RESUMEN Introducción: La estabilidad del implante se puede medir al momento de colocarlo o una vez que el proceso de osteointegración está en curso. Se deben considerar muchos factores, incluida la calidad ósea, la superficie y diseño del implante, la longitud y el diámetro. Objetivo: Determinar la influencia de la longitud del implante en la estabilidad primaria y secundaria en huesos tipo II y tipo III mediante el método de análisis de frecuencia de resonancia. Métodos: Estudio prospectivo en el departamento de Implantología Oral maxilofacial de la Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad de Chile, entre abril 2006 y junio 2007. Se colocaron 38 implantes tipo tornillo en maxilar y mandíbula, en huesos tipo II y tipo III. 21 implantes tenían un área de contacto promedio de 237 mm2, incluidos 2 tamaños (3,75 mm y una longitud de 13 mm y 15 mm) y 17 implantes tenían un área de contacto promedio de 129 mm2 (diámetro de 3,75 mm y una longitud de 7 mm). La estabilidad primaria del implante se midió mediante el valor cociente de estabilidad del implante y la estabilidad secundaria. Resultados: Para implantes con un área de contacto promedio de 237 mm2, la estabilidad 1 fue de 71,37 y la estabilidad 2 fue de 66,6. Para implantes con un área de contacto promedio de 129 mm2, la estabilidad 1 fue de 67,47 y la estabilidad 2 fue de 68,08. Conclusión: La longitud del implante no influye en la estabilidad primaria y secundaria en los huesos tipo II y tipo III.
RESUMO
Background and Objectives: Implant stability in vivo is contingent on multiple factors, such as bone structure, instrument positioning and implant surface modifications, implant diameter, and implant length. Resonance-frequency analysis is considered a non-invasive, reliable, predictable, and objective method by which to evaluate implant stability, due to its correlation with bone-to-implant contact. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of implant length on the primary and secondary stability of single-implant crown rehabilitations, as measured by resonance-frequency analysis at different times. Materials and Methods: Implants of 10 and 11.5 mm were placed, and the resonance frequency was measured at the time of surgery (T0), as well as at 3 (T1), 6 (T2), and 12 (T3) months post-surgery. Results: A total of 559 implants were placed in 195 patients. Significant differences were observed when comparing the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values at T1, with values for 10-mm implants being greater than those for 11.5-mm implants (p = 0.035). These differences were also observed when comparing ISQ values for buccal and lingual areas. At T0, T2, and T3, no significant differences in ISQ values were observed. The use of 10-mm implants in the anterior maxilla yielded significantly greater values at T0 (p = 0.018) and T1 (p = 0.031) when compared with 11.5-mm implants. Significant differences in measurements were observed only for buccal areas (p = 0.005; p = 0.018). When comparing the sample lengths and sex, women with 11.5-mm implants showed significantly lower results than those with 10-mm implants (p < 0.001). Conclusions: There is a direct relationship between implants of a smaller length and greater ISQ values, with this relationship being most evident in the maxilla and in women.