METHODS: Retrospective data from clinical worksheets given to participants during two implant courses held between the periods of 2013 to 2014 were evaluated. A total of 61 implants were considered based on the inclusion criteria. The effects of parameters such as implant diameter, implant length, age, gender, implant location and osteotomy protocol on ISQ values were analyzed.
RESULTS: Mean ISQ value for all implants was 67.21±9.13. Age of patients (P=0.016) and location of implants (P=0.041) had a significant linear relationship with the ISQ values. Within the age limit of the patients in this study, it was found that an increase in one year of patient's age results in 0.20 decrease in ISQ value (95% CI: -0.36, -0.04). However, placing an implant in the posterior maxilla may negatively affect the ISQ with a likely decrease in primary stability by 6.76 ISQ value (95% CI: -13.22, -0.30).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the mean ISQ achieved by the participants were comparable with the range reported for this particular type of implants. The patient's age and location of implants were elucidated as the determinant factors of primary implant stability.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate crestal bone loss (CBL) around zirconia dental implants and clinical periimplant inflammatory parameters.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The focus question addressed was, "Do zirconia implants maintain crestal bone levels and periimplant soft tissue health?" Databases were searched for articles from 1977 through September 2014 with different combinations of the following MeSH terms: "dental implants," "zirconium," "alveolar bone loss," "periodontal attachment loss," "periodontal pocket," "periodontal index." Letters to the editor, case reports, commentaries, review articles, and articles published in languages other than English were excluded.
RESULTS: Thirteen clinical studies were included. In 8 of the studies, the CBL around zirconia implants was comparable between baseline and follow-up. In the other 5 studies, the CBL around zirconia implants was significantly higher at follow-up. Among the studies that used titanium implants as controls, 2 studies showed significantly higher CBL around zirconia implants, and in 1 study, the CBL around zirconia and titanium implants was comparable. The reported implant survival rates for zirconia implants ranged between 67.6% and 100%. Eleven studies selectively reported the periimplant inflammatory parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: Because of the variations in study design and methodology, it was difficult to reach a consensus regarding the efficacy of zirconia implants in maintaining crestal bone levels and periimplant soft tissue health.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with implants were included in this study and implants were assessed by resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Bone levels of the implants were assessed by measuring mesial and distal bone levels from the periapical radiograph, and soft tissue was assessed from probing depth using a periodontal probe. Implants were assessed for stability and probing depth at pre-loading, at 3 months and 6 months post-loading. RFA and probing depth were statistically compared from different time points. Correlation of probing depth and marginal bone loss with implant stability was also determined.
RESULTS: The average change in implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurements from pre-loading to 6 months post-loading was found to be statistically significant (p <0.005). The average probing depth reduced from 1.767 mm at pre-loading to 1.671 mm at post-loading 3 months, and 1.600 mm at post-loading 6 months. At 6 months of function, radiographic examination yielded 0.786 mm mesial bone loss and 0.8 mm distal bone loss. It was found to be statistically significant (p <0.005) but within an acceptable range. No significant correlation was found between implant stability and bone loss; and implant stability and probing depth.
CONCLUSION: The study revealed an increasing trend in implant stability values with the time that indicates successful osseointegration. Increasing mean values for mesial and distal bone loss were also found.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The success of dental implants is highly dependent on the quality of bone and implant-bone interface, i.e., osseointegration. The most important factors that influence the survival rate of an implant is initial stability. The present study found the changes in the peri-implant hard and soft tissues and implant stability. This article, while being a prospective study, may show the evidence of successful osseointegration by increasing trend in implant stability (RFA) values with time which can help to the clinician in the long-term management of implants.