Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants

Luca Comuzzi, Margherita Tumedei, Ana Emilia Pontes, Adriano Piattelli and Giovanna Iezzi
Additional contact information
Luca Comuzzi: Private Practice, San Vendemiano-Conegliano, 31020 Treviso, Italy
Margherita Tumedei: Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy
Ana Emilia Pontes: Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora-Campus Governador Valadares, São Paulo 01000, Brazil
Adriano Piattelli: Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy
Giovanna Iezzi: Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 8, 1-11

Abstract: Background: The aim of the present study was to compare, in low-density polyurethane blocks, the primary implant stability values (micromobility) and removal torque values of three different implant geometries in two different bone densities representing the structure of the human posterior jaws. Methods: A total of 60 implants were used in the present investigation: twenty implants for each of three groups (group A, group B, and group C), in both polyurethane 10 pcf and 20 pcf densities. The insertion torque, pull-out torque, and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were obtained. Results: No differences were found in the values of Group A and Group B implants. In both these groups, the insertion torques were quite low in the 10 pcf blocks. Better results were found in the 20 pcf blocks, which showed very good stability of the implants. The pull-out values were slightly lower than the insertion torque values. High ISQ values were found in Group A and B implants. Lower values were present in Group C implants. Conclusions: The present investigation evaluated implants with different geometries that are available on the market, and not experimental implants specifically created for the study. The authors aimed to simulate real clinical conditions (poor-density bone or immediate post-extraction implants) in which knowledge of dental implant features, which may be useful in increasing the primary stability, may help the oral surgeon during the surgery planning.

Keywords: bone density; cylindrical implants; conical implants; implant stability quotient; insertion and pull-out torque; polyurethane foam blocks; primary stability (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/8/2617/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/8/2617/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:8:p:2617-:d:344219

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().