1 / 5

Multiple Condensing Thread Design and Implant Stability In Vitro

Multiple Condensing Thread Design and Implant Stability In Vitro. Georgios E. Romanos , DDS, PhD, Prof Dr med dent * ; Wei Hou , PhD, Rafael A. Delgado-Ruiz, DDS, MSc, PhD 2. School of Dental Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York.

rsoo
Download Presentation

Multiple Condensing Thread Design and Implant Stability In Vitro

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Multiple Condensing Thread Design and Implant Stability In Vitro Georgios E. Romanos, DDS, PhD, Prof Dr med dent*; Wei Hou, PhD, Rafael A. Delgado-Ruiz, DDS, MSc, PhD2 School of Dental Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York

  2. Implant thread design has a fundamental impact on implant primary stability (PS). The aim of this study was to evaluatethe PS of dental implants with multiple condensing threads (MCT) in vitro.

  3. 160 MCT-designed implants were placedin cellular rigid polyurethane foam bone blocks (Sawbone, Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon, WA, USA), simulating type II and type IV bone density. Two different types of implants (SBII and SBIII, Anker, Alliance Co.) were evaluated for implant stability. Implants with diameters of 3.5 mm and 4.0 mm and lengths of 11.5 mm (Fig. 1) were placed into bone blocks after drilling the osteotomies with 800 rpm. PSwas recorded using RFA(Penguinand Osstelldevices) and Periotest. Statistical comparison between SBII and SBIII was performed with the t-test. Fig. 1: SB II and SB III Implants used in this experiment. Two diameters were used per each implant group.

  4. The data showed that all implants had a very good PS for all evaluation methodsand high reliability of the results due to the consistency in measurements(Tables 1 and 2). In soft bone, the SBII was higher (p < 0.0001) for 4.0 mm diameter implants. • All other implant groups did not show any statistical differences. Narrow or wider implants did not have any difference in terms of implant PS(p > 0.05).

  5. The MCT-designed implants have an excellent PS in artificial bone. Due to the condensation effect of the thread design, the narrow diameter does notinfluence negatively the implant stability.  

More Related