Fabián Pérez-González, Santiago Bazal-Bonelli, Luis Sánchez-Labrador, Luis Miguel Sáez-Alcaide, Héctor González-Menéndez, Carlos Cobo-Vázquez, Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann
{"title":"445颗种植体的临床研究:初级和次级稳定性对种植体特性影响的多变量分析。","authors":"Fabián Pérez-González, Santiago Bazal-Bonelli, Luis Sánchez-Labrador, Luis Miguel Sáez-Alcaide, Héctor González-Menéndez, Carlos Cobo-Vázquez, Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann","doi":"10.11607/jomi.11254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the relationship between primary stability (PS) and secondary stability (SS) and various implant characteristics.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included a total of 169 patients who received 445 dental implants. A case history was created for each participant. Data collection included each patient's age; implant design, length, and diameter; bone type; and other surgical factors. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were measured at baseline (T0 [for PS]) and after the appropriate osseointegration period (T1 [for SS]). To calculate the ISQ values at T0 and T1-and to compare their differences in the variables age, design, length, and diameter-a multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed to determine which variables acted as confounding factors and to adjust the ISQ values to these variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The main variables (age, design, length, and diameter) were adjusted to their confounding factors. Regarding PS (T0) and SS (T1), statistically significant differences (P < .05) were only found for implant diameter; moreover, the larger the diameter, the greater the implant stability. For all other main variables, no statistically significant differences were found for PS and SS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that implant diameter is the only variable that significantly affects the PS and SS of the implant.</p>","PeriodicalId":94230,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","volume":"0 0","pages":"120-126"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multivariate Analysis of the Influence of Primary and Secondary Stability in Relation to Dental Implant Characteristics: A Clinical Study of 445 Implants.\",\"authors\":\"Fabián Pérez-González, Santiago Bazal-Bonelli, Luis Sánchez-Labrador, Luis Miguel Sáez-Alcaide, Héctor González-Menéndez, Carlos Cobo-Vázquez, Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/jomi.11254\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the relationship between primary stability (PS) and secondary stability (SS) and various implant characteristics.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included a total of 169 patients who received 445 dental implants. A case history was created for each participant. Data collection included each patient's age; implant design, length, and diameter; bone type; and other surgical factors. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were measured at baseline (T0 [for PS]) and after the appropriate osseointegration period (T1 [for SS]). To calculate the ISQ values at T0 and T1-and to compare their differences in the variables age, design, length, and diameter-a multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed to determine which variables acted as confounding factors and to adjust the ISQ values to these variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The main variables (age, design, length, and diameter) were adjusted to their confounding factors. Regarding PS (T0) and SS (T1), statistically significant differences (P < .05) were only found for implant diameter; moreover, the larger the diameter, the greater the implant stability. For all other main variables, no statistically significant differences were found for PS and SS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that implant diameter is the only variable that significantly affects the PS and SS of the implant.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94230,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants\",\"volume\":\"0 0\",\"pages\":\"120-126\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.11254\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.11254","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Multivariate Analysis of the Influence of Primary and Secondary Stability in Relation to Dental Implant Characteristics: A Clinical Study of 445 Implants.
Purpose: To determine the relationship between primary stability (PS) and secondary stability (SS) and various implant characteristics.
Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort study included a total of 169 patients who received 445 dental implants. A case history was created for each participant. Data collection included each patient's age; implant design, length, and diameter; bone type; and other surgical factors. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were measured at baseline (T0 [for PS]) and after the appropriate osseointegration period (T1 [for SS]). To calculate the ISQ values at T0 and T1-and to compare their differences in the variables age, design, length, and diameter-a multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed to determine which variables acted as confounding factors and to adjust the ISQ values to these variables.
Results: The main variables (age, design, length, and diameter) were adjusted to their confounding factors. Regarding PS (T0) and SS (T1), statistically significant differences (P < .05) were only found for implant diameter; moreover, the larger the diameter, the greater the implant stability. For all other main variables, no statistically significant differences were found for PS and SS.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that implant diameter is the only variable that significantly affects the PS and SS of the implant.