Effect of different thread configurations on hydrophilic implant stability. A split-mouth RCT.

Brazilian dental journal Pub Date : 2024-03-22 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1590/0103-6440202405632
Pablo Pádua Barbosa, Vithor Xavier Resende de Oliveira, João Vitor Goulart, Rogério Margonar, Marcos Boaventura de Moura, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de Oliveira
{"title":"Effect of different thread configurations on hydrophilic implant stability. A split-mouth RCT.","authors":"Pablo Pádua Barbosa, Vithor Xavier Resende de Oliveira, João Vitor Goulart, Rogério Margonar, Marcos Boaventura de Moura, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de Oliveira","doi":"10.1590/0103-6440202405632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This split-mouth randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the primary and secondary stability of hybrid implants with different thread configurations and hydrophilic surfaces. Twenty patients with a partially edentulous maxilla were selected. These patients received two types of implants with the same hydrophilic surface: CTP group: Cylindrical-Tapered implant with perforating threads; CTH: Cylindrical-Tapered implant with hybrid threads configuration (perforating and condensing threads). The primary and secondary stability parameters were measured by insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis at the time of implant placement and 7, 28, 56, and 90 days after the surgical procedure. The paired t-test was used to compare the data on the implant's stability between the groups. The statistical analysis was performed with a confidence level set at 95%. It was found that the implants in the CTH group presented higher primary stability values ​​at the time of implant placement, due to the higher ISQ (63.61 ± 9.44 vs. 40.59 ±7.46) and insertion torque (36.92 ± 16.50 Ncm vs. 28.00 ± 14.40 Ncm), than the implants in the CTP group. The CTH group presented higher ISQ values ​​in all follow-up periods: 7 days (68.67 ± 7.60 vs. 41.55 ± 9.07), 28 days (68.61 ± 5.98 vs. 47.90 ±13.10), 56 days (74.09 ± 3.96 vs. 55.85 ± 13.18), and 90 days (75.45 ± 4.02 vs. 63.47 ± 6.92) after implant placement. Hybrid implants with perforating and condensing threads demonstrated greater stability than hybrid implants with only perforating threads.</p>","PeriodicalId":101363,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian dental journal","volume":"35 ","pages":"e245632"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10976314/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian dental journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202405632","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This split-mouth randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the primary and secondary stability of hybrid implants with different thread configurations and hydrophilic surfaces. Twenty patients with a partially edentulous maxilla were selected. These patients received two types of implants with the same hydrophilic surface: CTP group: Cylindrical-Tapered implant with perforating threads; CTH: Cylindrical-Tapered implant with hybrid threads configuration (perforating and condensing threads). The primary and secondary stability parameters were measured by insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis at the time of implant placement and 7, 28, 56, and 90 days after the surgical procedure. The paired t-test was used to compare the data on the implant's stability between the groups. The statistical analysis was performed with a confidence level set at 95%. It was found that the implants in the CTH group presented higher primary stability values ​​at the time of implant placement, due to the higher ISQ (63.61 ± 9.44 vs. 40.59 ±7.46) and insertion torque (36.92 ± 16.50 Ncm vs. 28.00 ± 14.40 Ncm), than the implants in the CTP group. The CTH group presented higher ISQ values ​​in all follow-up periods: 7 days (68.67 ± 7.60 vs. 41.55 ± 9.07), 28 days (68.61 ± 5.98 vs. 47.90 ±13.10), 56 days (74.09 ± 3.96 vs. 55.85 ± 13.18), and 90 days (75.45 ± 4.02 vs. 63.47 ± 6.92) after implant placement. Hybrid implants with perforating and condensing threads demonstrated greater stability than hybrid implants with only perforating threads.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同螺纹配置对亲水性种植体稳定性的影响。分口 RCT。
这项分口随机对照试验旨在评估具有不同螺纹结构和亲水表面的混合种植体的主要和次要稳定性。试验选择了 20 名上颌骨部分缺失的患者。这些患者接受了两种具有相同亲水表面的种植体:CTP 组:CTP组:带有穿孔螺纹的圆锥形种植体;CTH组:带有混合螺纹配置(穿孔螺纹和冷凝螺纹)的圆锥形种植体。在植入种植体时、手术后 7 天、28 天、56 天和 90 天,通过插入扭矩和共振频率分析测量主要和次要稳定性参数。采用配对 t 检验来比较各组间种植体稳定性的数据。统计分析的置信度设定为 95%。结果发现,与 CTP 组相比,CTH 组种植体的 ISQ(63.61 ± 9.44 vs. 40.59 ± 7.46)和插入扭矩(36.92 ± 16.50 Ncm vs. 28.00 ± 14.40 Ncm)更高,因此植入时的主要稳定性值更高。CTH 组在所有随访期的 ISQ 值均高于 CTP 组:种植体植入后 7 天(68.67 ± 7.60 vs. 41.55 ± 9.07)、28 天(68.61 ± 5.98 vs. 47.90 ± 13.10)、56 天(74.09 ± 3.96 vs. 55.85 ± 13.18)和 90 天(75.45 ± 4.02 vs. 63.47 ± 6.92)。与仅使用穿孔螺纹的混合种植体相比,使用穿孔螺纹和冷凝螺纹的混合种植体具有更高的稳定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cone beam computed tomography vs. Periapical Radiograph: Diagnostic accuracy in endo and periodontal lesions. Effect of F18 Bioactive Glass-Treated Gutta-Percha on Interaction with Endodontic Sealers. Effect of the screw-retained abutment material on the fatigue behavior of lithium disilicate restorations. Histological evaluation of bone graft healing in maxillary sinus floor augmentation at two healing time points: a randomized clinical trial. Effect of the Blooming Artifact Reduction filter on the detection of voids in root canal fillings using cone-beam computed tomography images.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1