IADR Abstract Archives
Effects of Subcrestal Implant Placement on Implant Stability In-vitro.
Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the effects of subcrestal implant placement on the initial stability of dental implants with different implant designs.
Methods: 120 in total implants were placed in artificial bone blocks representing type II bone quality. 20 implants in each group (Ankylos 3.5mm/11mm/Dentsply-Implants-group A and TSV 3.7mm/10mm /Zimmer, Biomet 3i-group B) were inserted at different depths (3mm subcrestal, 1.5mm subcrestal and at crestal level). All the implants were placed by the same calibrated clinician. The primary stability was evaluated using the Osstell device to measure resonance frequency analysis (RFA) of each implant (ISQ values). The Non-parametric ANOVA test (Kruskal-Wallis Test with Dunn’s multiple comparison test was used for evaluation of the statistical differences.
Results: The results showed extremely significant differences (p < 0.001) of the implant stability, when group A-implants were placed at subcrestal levels compared to all group B-implants in dense bones. A statistical significant difference (p < 0.01) was found for group A-implants placed at subcrestal compared to crestal levels. It was not statistical difference in stability between implants placed 1.5 or 3.0mm subcrestally for group A and group B implants (p > 0.05). However, implant stability was associated with the implant design when implants were placed subcrestally. Group A- and group B-implants did not have differences in stability when implants were placed at crestal level (p > 0.05) and the corono-apical position of group B-implants did not effect the implant stability (p > 0.05).
Conclusions: Subcrestal implant placement may be beneficial in dense bone for improvement of initial implant stability. However, the primary stability of implants placed subcrestally is dependent of the implant design more than the insertion depth.
Methods: 120 in total implants were placed in artificial bone blocks representing type II bone quality. 20 implants in each group (Ankylos 3.5mm/11mm/Dentsply-Implants-group A and TSV 3.7mm/10mm /Zimmer, Biomet 3i-group B) were inserted at different depths (3mm subcrestal, 1.5mm subcrestal and at crestal level). All the implants were placed by the same calibrated clinician. The primary stability was evaluated using the Osstell device to measure resonance frequency analysis (RFA) of each implant (ISQ values). The Non-parametric ANOVA test (Kruskal-Wallis Test with Dunn’s multiple comparison test was used for evaluation of the statistical differences.
Results: The results showed extremely significant differences (p < 0.001) of the implant stability, when group A-implants were placed at subcrestal levels compared to all group B-implants in dense bones. A statistical significant difference (p < 0.01) was found for group A-implants placed at subcrestal compared to crestal levels. It was not statistical difference in stability between implants placed 1.5 or 3.0mm subcrestally for group A and group B implants (p > 0.05). However, implant stability was associated with the implant design when implants were placed subcrestally. Group A- and group B-implants did not have differences in stability when implants were placed at crestal level (p > 0.05) and the corono-apical position of group B-implants did not effect the implant stability (p > 0.05).
Conclusions: Subcrestal implant placement may be beneficial in dense bone for improvement of initial implant stability. However, the primary stability of implants placed subcrestally is dependent of the implant design more than the insertion depth.