Open Access

Retrospective clinical study of ultrawide implants more than 6 mm in diameter

Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery201638:30

DOI: 10.1186/s40902-016-0075-z

Received: 21 May 2016

Accepted: 27 June 2016

Published: 5 August 2016

Abstract

Background

The prognosis of wide implants tends to be controversial. While wider implants were initially expected to result in a larger osseointegration area and have higher levels of primary stability, they were reported to have a relatively high rate of failure. The clinical outcome of ultrawide implants of more than 6 mm in diameter was evaluated through a retrospective study.

Methods

The investigation was conducted on patients who had received ultrawide implant (≥6 mm diameter) placements in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from January 2008 to December 2013. Complications were investigated during the maintenance period, and marginal bone loss was measured using periapical radiography. Primary stability immediately after the implant placement and second stability after second surgery or during impression were measured using Osstell® Mentor (Osstell, Sweden) as an implant stability quotient (ISQ).

Results

Fifty-eight implants were placed in 53 patients (30 male, 23 female), and they were observed for an average of 50.06 ± 23.49 months. The average ISQ value increased from 71.22 ± 10.26 to 77.48 ± 8.98 (P < 0.005). The primary and secondary stability shows significantly higher at the mandible than at the maxilla (P < 0.001). However, mean survival rate shows 98.28 %. Average marginal bone loss of 0.018 and 0.045 mm were measured at 12 and 24 months after the loading and 0.14 mm at final follow-up date (mean 46.25 months), respectively. Also in this study, the bone loss amount was noticeably small compared to regular implants reported in previous studies.

Conclusions

The excellent clinical outcome of ultrawide implants was confirmed. It was determined that an ultrawide implant can be used as an alternative when the bone quality in the posterior teeth is relatively low or when a previous implant has failed.

Keywords

Ultrawide implant Diameter Outcome

Background

Implant placement has become a universal type of dental treatment, and diverse studies have been conducted on implants. However, the prognosis of wide implants tends to be controversial. Haas et al. [1] contended that neither diameter nor length of implants affected their survival rate, and Bischof et al. noted that neither diameter nor length of implants remarkably affected the implant stability quotient (ISQ) [2]. According to the 2015 systematic review of implant diameter, the diameter of implants in the posterior maxilla makes a secondary contribution to their long-term survival, and the factors making the most important contribution include roughness of the implant surface, torque in implantation, initial stability, surgical types, and preoperative and postoperative oral hygiene management and maintenance [3].

While wider implants were initially expected to result in a larger osseointegration area and have higher levels of primary stability, they were reported to have a relatively high rate of 5-year failure (9–24 %) [46]. Small and Tarnow reported that implants of ≥5 mm in diameter caused buccal alveolar bone resorption and gingival recession due to excessive pressure on buccal bone while they were placed [7]. In contrast, He et al. [8] reported clinically successful outcome of immediate re-insertion of a wider implant when the previous implantation was a failure, and Nelissen et al. [9] reported that implants of 4.5 mm in diameter were more stable than those of 3.75 mm in diameter and brought about clinically favorable effects in a short period (6 months) of follow-up.

It is known that implant surgery is risky in the maxillary and mandibular posterior regions, which are characterized by strong occlusion, poor bone quality, and lack of remaining bone quantity in many cases [10, 11]. In particular, mechanical load may act very unfavorably on the posterior maxilla, which has a thinner cortical bone layer and lower bone density than the posterior mandible. It is therefore necessary to give priority to large-diameter implants [12, 13]. Bihan et al. [14] observed little difference in ISQ between 3.8- and 4.6-mm diameter implants, both of which were inserted into cancellous bone, and some researchers reported that while implant length affected initial stability at a region with poor bone quality, wide implants were less likely to have specific effects on initial stability than general ones [15]. Vandeweghe et al. reported that the rate of 1-year survival for wide and short implants of 8–9 mm in diameter and 7–9 mm in length was higher in the maxilla (97.8 %) than that in the mandible (90.9 %) [16].

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical prognosis of ultrawide implants of ≥6 mm in diameter, which were inserted into the maxillary and mandibular posterior regions, in terms of location, implant diameter, implant placement types, and prosthetics types, through a retrospective study.

Methods

This study was conducted with the approval of the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (IRB No. B-1308-216-105).

The research was conducted in the patients who had visited the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital mainly for tooth loss from January 2008 to December 2013 and received treatment with an ultrawide implant of ≥6 mm in diameter (Superline, Dentium Co., Seoul, Korea). We examined complications after implant placement and prosthetic restoration and used radiographs to estimate the ratio of the length of an actual implant fixture to that of the fixture in a periapical view, taking the magnification rate into account, and determine the resorption on the mesial and distal alveolar bones of the implant.

Osstell Mentor (Osstell®, Gothenburg, Sweden) was used to measure both primary stability at implant placement and secondary stability after the secondary operation or at the time of the first impression. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine the survival rate, and the difference between primary and secondary stability in ISQ was analyzed using paired t test. The differences by surgical procedure, the variation in ISQ by the maxilla/mandible, prosthetic types (single or splinted crown), implant diameter, the survival rate, and peri-implant marginal bone loss were analyzed using independent-sample t test. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the differences in primary and secondary stability, marginal bone loss, prosthesis type, survival rate, and success rate by implant length, and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used to determine correlation between implant length and primary and secondary stability. The success rate was estimated among those implants with ≤0.2-mm vertical bone resorption on an annual basis and without mobility, pain, discomfort, or infection [17].

Results

Fifty-eight implants were placed in 53 patients (30 males and 23 females) and were followed up for an average of 46.25 months after prosthesis loading. The complications included peri-implant gingivitis (one case; 1.7 %) and ≥0.2-mm marginal bone resorption on an annual basis (3; 5.2 %); of these, one case (1.7 %) was accompanied by temporomandibular disorder (TMD) and another one involved implant removal due to failed osseointegration. In the follow-up, the mean survival rate for implants was estimated at 98.28 ± 0.13 % and the success rate at 94.83 ± 0.22 % on the basis of Albrektsson’s success criteria.

The variation in peri-implant marginal bone loss was determined using periapical radiography 12 and 24 months after implant loading following prosthesis installation as well as during the follow-up. Bone resorption was estimated at an average of 0.018 and 0.045 mm for 12 and 24 months after prosthesis installation, respectively, and at an average of 0.14 ± 0.47 mm for an average of 46.25 months after functional loading.

Of the three implants with ≥0.2-mm marginal bone loss on an annual basis during the follow-up, one was removed due to peri-implantitis and, consequently, an average of 2.0-mm vertical bone resorption for 32 months of functional loading. For another implant, abutment screw fracture and alveolar bone loss occurred in 23.5 months of functional loading. Follow-up has been made after prosthesis removal and bone graft, and it has been functional for 42.75 months after functional loading. For the remaining one, no marginal bone loss had been observed up to 24 months of functional loading, but an average level of marginal bone loss (2.74 mm) was observed in 40 months; therefore, it is under maintenance treatment.

Osstell Mentor was used to measure both primary and secondary stability in 47 of 47 patients. The mean ISQ increased statistically, significantly from 71.22 ± 10.26 for primary stability to 77.48 ± 8.98 for secondary stability (P < 0.005). Mandibular implants had statistically, significantly higher levels of both primary and secondary stability than the maxillary ones (P < 0.005). An average of 0.01-mm peri-implant marginal bone loss was observed in 24 months in both the maxilla and the mandible, and one failure was found in the maxilla; therefore, neither the implant survival rate—100 % for the mandible and 95.83 % for the maxilla—nor the success rate—91.67 and 97.06 %, respectively—was statistically significant. In the maxilla, peri-implant marginal bone loss was estimated at an average of 0.04 ± 0.142 mm for 23 implants in 12 months and at an average of 0.11 ± 0.363 mm for 17 implants in 24 months. In the mandible, no bone resorption was found for 31 implants in 12 months and for 25 implants in 24 months. During the follow-up, the rate of ≥0.2-mm marginal bone loss on an annual basis was statistically, insignificantly higher in the mandible (8.33 %) than in the maxilla (2.94 %) (Table 1).
Table 1

For detect differences of survival rate, success rate, marginal bone loss, and stability between the maxilla and the mandible

 

Maxilla

Mandible

P value

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

Sig. (two-tailed)

Survival rate

24

95.83 %

0.20

33

100 %

0.00

NS

Success rate

24

91.67 %

0.28

34

97.06 %

0.17

NS

Primary stability

24

67.42

8.87

34

77.06

8.58

+++

Secondary stability

21

71.52

8.11

26

82.29

6.48

+++

Marginal bone loss

 12 months

23

0.04

0.14

31

0.00

0.00

NS

 24 months

17

0.11

0.36

25

0.00

0.01

NS

 Marginal bone loss

24

8.33 %

0.28

34

2.94 %

0.17

NS

NS nonsignificant

+++Independent-samples t test is significant at the 0.005 level (two-tailed)

Forty-eight implants were restored using a single crown and the remaining 10 using a splinted crown. Forty-seven implants of 6 mm in diameter and 11 of 7 mm in diameter were placed, with the length of the implants ranging from 7 to 12 mm (Table 2). Neither prosthesis type nor implant diameter made statistically significant difference in the implant survival or success rate, primary or secondary stability, or marginal bone loss in 12 and 24 months (Tables 3 and 4).
Table 2

Number of implant by length and diameter of implant

Size of implants

Diameter (mm)

Total

6.00

7.00

Length (mm)

7.00

6

0

6

8.00

19

2

21

10.00

16

7

23

12.00

6

2

8

Total

47

11

58

Table 3

For detect differences of survival rate, success rate, marginal bone loss, and stability between types of prosthetics

Implant prosthesis

Single crown

Splinted prosthetics

P value

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

Sig. (two-tailed)

Survival rate

48

97.92 %

0.14

10

100 %

0.00

NS

Success rate

48

93.75 %

0.05

10

100 %

0.00

NS

Primary stability

39

73.40

10.10

10

71.50

8.99

NS

Secondary stability

39

77.27

9.55

8

78.50

5.81

NS

Marginal bone loss

 12 months

47

0.020

0.103

10

0.00

0.000

NS

 24 months

33

0.040

0.258

9

0.04

0.113

NS

 Marginal bone lossa

48

6.25 %

0.24

10

0.00 %

0

NS

NS nonsignificant

aAbove annually 0.2 mm until final follow-up date

Table 4

For detect differences of survival rate, success rate, marginal bone loss, and stability between diameter of implants

Diameter (mm)

6.0

7.0

P value

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

Survival rate

47

97.87 %

0.15

11

100 %

0.00

NS

Success rate

47

93.62 %

0.25

11

100 %

0.00

NS

Primary stability

47

72.04

9.98

11

77.45

8.43

NS

Secondary stability

39

78.19

8.39

8

74.00

11.46

NS

Marginal bone loss

12 months

45

0.02

0.10

9

0.00

0.00

NS

24 months

33

0.06

0.26

9

0.00

0.00

NS

Marginal bone lossa

47

6.38 %

0.25

11

0.00 %

0

NS

NS nonsignificant

aAbove annually 0.2 mm until final follow-up date

A longer implant tended to show a lower level of primary and secondary stability. Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that implant length was statistically, significantly correlated with primary and secondary stability (P < 0.05). Mann-Whitney U test showed that implants of 7.0 mm in length had statistically, significantly higher levels of primary (P < 0.05) and secondary (P = 0.005) stability than those of 12.0 mm and that there was no statistically significant difference in primary and secondary stability among the other cases of length. However, there were a relatively small number of 7- and 12-mm implants with statistical significance: 6 implants of 7 mm, 21 of 8 mm, 23 of 10 mm, and 8 of 12 mm (Table 5).
Table 5

For detect differences of survival rate, success rate, marginal bone loss, and stability among length of implants

Length (mm)

7.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

P value

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

Survival rate

6

100 %

0.00

21

100 %

0.00

23

100 %

0.00

8

87.50 %

0.35

NS

Success rate

6

100 %

0.00

21

95.24 %

0.22

23

95.65 %

0.21

8

87.50 %

0.35

NS

Primary stability

6

77.33

9.77

21

72.14

10.10

23

75.52

9.27

8

65.25

7.40

+

Secondary stability

6

84.42

3.50

17

76.85

8.59

17

78.97

8.45

7

69.43

9.48

+

Marginal bone loss

 12 months

5

0.00

0.00

21

0.02

0.10

21

0.00

0.00

7

0.08

0.20

NS

 24 months

4

0.00

0.00

16

0.00

0.00

16

0.03

0.09

6

0.25

0.60

NS

 Marginal bone lossa

6

0.00 %

0.00

21

4.76 %

0.22

23

4.35 %

0.22

8

12.50 %

0.35

NS

NS nonsignificant

aAbove annually 0.2 mm until final follow-up date

+Kruskal-Wallis test is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)

Twenty-six implants were placed using one-stage surgical protocol and 32 using two-stage protocol. For initial stability, one-stage protocol resulted in significantly higher ISQ than the two-stage protocol (P < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between the one- and two-stage protocol in secondary stability after the mean healing period of 19.13 weeks for one-stage protocol and 17.16 weeks for two-stage protocol, in the survival rate, or in marginal bone loss after functional loading (Table 6).
Table 6

For detect differences of survival rate, success rate, marginal bone loss and stability between surgery protocol

Surgery protocol

1-stage

2-stage

P value

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

Survival rate

26

100 %

0.00

32

96.88 %

0.18

NS

Success rate

26

96.15 %

0.20

32

93.75 %

0.25

NS

Primary stability

26

76.81

7.80

32

70.03

10.42

*

Secondary stability

15

79.97

7.99

32

76.31

9.30

NS

Marginal bone loss

 12 months

25

0.00

0.00

31

0.01

0.06

NS

 24 months

21

0.02

0.07

21

0.07

0.32

NS

 Marginal bone lossa

26

3.85 %

32

32

6.25 %

0.42

NS

a NS nonsignificant

aIndependent-samples t test is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)

*Independent-samples t test is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Discussion

The correlation between implant length/diameter and the bone quality and implant stability remains controversial. Many researchers reported that larger-diameter implants, which had a larger area of contact with the supporting bone and put less stress distribution on peri-implant bone, could more favorably secure high levels of initial stability [18]. The biomechanical analysis also showed that the larger the implant diameter, the greater the removal torque, demonstrating that wide implants are more stable than narrow ones in general [19]. Degidi et al. [20] contended that the bone quality was weakly correlated with ISQ, which was significantly affected by implant diameter and length. Wide implants were reportedly less likely to have their initial stability affected specifically by a low bone quality than general ones [18]. In this study, the maxilla with relatively lower bone density showed a lower level of primary and secondary stability than the mandible. In the maxilla, however, the levels of both primary and secondary stability—67.42 ± 8.87 and 71.52 ± 8.11, respectively—were higher than those of minimal ISQ (65) for immediate or early loading [21]. No significant difference was found in the implant survival rate or marginal bone loss by arch, and it was believed that the gap in the bone quality between the maxilla and the mandible had no significant effect on the clinical prognosis of ultrawide implants.

The ultrawide Superline (Dentium, Suwon, Korea) in this study, which is characterized by internal connection, an SLA surface, and tapered shape, is up to 7.0 mm in diameter and can be inserted into the sites containing low-quality bone or into those where general-diameter implants failed to be placed. Bihan et al. [14] observed little difference in ISQ between 3.8- and 4.6-mm-diameter implants, both of which were inserted into the cancellous bone, and no difference was found in primary or secondary stability between the 6- and 7-mm-diameter implants in this study.

Some researchers reported that the implants of ≥5 mm in diameter could cause buccal alveolar bone resorption and gingival recession and be less likely to survive due to excessive pressure on buccal bone while they were placed [21]. However, the implants of 6 and 7 mm in diameter in this study were very likely to survive and no more than three (5.17 %) of them were found to cause severe marginal bone loss of ≥0.2 mm on an annual basis during the follow-up. In this study, wide implants were selectively applied to the sites containing low-quality bone or to previously failed sites, and care was taken not to put ≥35 Ncm torque in placing implants; therefore, excessive pressure was not put on the buccal bone, causing alveolar bone resorption, which was not excessive, contrary to the research conducted before 2000 [22].

Peri-implant marginal bone resorption is correlated with excessive stress on bone tissues [23]. A 3D geometric analysis showed that offset placement failed to reduce tensile force, which could rather be reduced by the decrease in inclination of the cusp as well as by wide implants (>5 mm) [24]. Lateral force, which is put on the placed large-diameter implant, can relieve the load put on the peri-implant marginal bone and put less load on the implant than vertical force [25]. A larger-diameter implant lets less stress concentrated on peri-implant cortical bone in the neck due to lateral force in chewing [26]. This is why a small amount of marginal bone loss was observed around ultrawide implants in this study.

The patients with advanced bone loss were suspected of parafunction, such as bruxism, rejected the advice on wearing a night guard during the follow-up, and experienced repetitive abutment screw fracture, with one implant removed due to failed osseointegration. Patients with bruxism require a careful follow-up because they can ultimately experience peri-implant bone loss or implant failure [27].

Since a high level of initial stability permits implant surgery using one-stage protocol, it is natural that implants with one-stage protocol are initially more stable than those with two-stage protocol. No remarkable difference was observed in secondary stability between one- and two-stage protocol after a proper healing period and no statistically significant difference was found in the survival rate or marginal bone loss between them. It is presumed, therefore, that if a surgical situation is taken into account in choosing an implant surgery method and if enough time is given for osseointegration, the implant surgery method will have no special effect on the clinical prognosis.

Many researchers reported that a longer implant was usually more stable and more successful [2832]. In this study, a longer and wider implant generally tended to have a lower level of primary and secondary stability, with the secondary stability being lower than the primary. In particular, Mann-Whitney U Test showed that implants of 7.0 mm in length had statistically significantly higher levels of primary and secondary stability than those of 12.0 mm. However, since 7- and 12-mm implants were relatively fewer than the 8- and 10-mm implants, further research should be conducted in a larger sample of implants.

Conclusions

Ultrawide implants of ≥6 mm in diameter showed an excellent survival rate (98.28 %) and a very small amount of marginal bone loss (0.14-mm marginal bone resorption for 46.25 months on average). The mean survival rate was 98.28 ± 0.13 %, with the removal of 1 out of the 58 implants. The mean success rate was 94.83 ± 0.22 % and the factors affecting implant failure included ≥0.2-mm marginal bone resorption on an annual basis (5.2 %), TMD (1.7 %), and peri-implant gingivitis (1.7 %).

Significant differences were found neither in the volume of marginal bone resorption nor in the implant survival rate by the length of implants, surgical types, location of arch, or prosthetic types. However, a longer implant tended to show a lower level of primary and secondary stability.

It is possible to apply ultrawide implants to the maxillary and mandibular posterior regions with poor bone quality as well as to the previously failed sites, and an implant surgery method suitable for an anatomical situation at the time of operation, enough time for osseointegration, and prosthetic maintenance are expected to help bring about clinically favorable effects.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Convergence Research Program from the School of Dentistry and College of Medicine, Seoul National University (grant no. 860–20140121).

Authors’ contributions

KJK participated in writing the manuscript and data collection. YYJ performed all the prosthodontic treatment. YPY participated in the study design and performed the statistical analysis. KYK participated in the design and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
(2)
Department of Prosthodontics, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
(3)
Department of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University

References

  1. Haas R, Mensdorff-Pouilly N, Mailath G, Watzek G (1996) Survival of 1,920 IMZ implants followed for up to 100 months. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11:581–588PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bischof M, Nedir R, Szmukler-Moncler S, Bernard J-P, Samson J (2004) Implant stability measurement of delayed and immediately loaded implants during healing. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:529–539View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Javed F, Romanos GE (2015) Role of implant diameter on long-term survival of dental implants placed in posterior maxilla : a systemic review. Clin Oral Invest 19:1–10View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Ivanoff CJ, Grondahl K, Sennerby L, Bergström C, Lekholm U (1999) Influence of variations in implant diameters: a 3- to 5-year retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:173–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Attard NJ, Zarb GA (2013) Implant prosthodontic management of partially edentulous patients missing posterior teeth: the Toronto experience. J Prosthet Dent 89:352–559View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Eckert SE, Meraw SJ, Weaver AL, Lohse CM (2001) Early experience with wide-platform Mk II implants. Part I: implant survival. Part II: evaluation of risk factors involving implant survival. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16:208–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Small PN, Tarnow DP (2000) Gingival recession around implants: a 1-year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:527–532PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. He J, Shang YW, Deng CF, Shang DH, Zhang C, Wang DN, Zhao BH (2014) A clinical retrospective analysis of dental implants replaced in previously failed site. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 23:196–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Nelissen RC, den Besten CA, Mylanus EA, Hol MK (2016) Stability, survival and tolerability of a 4.5-mm-wide bone-anchored hearing implant: 6-month data from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:105–111View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Muftu A, Chapman RJ (1998) Replacing posterior teeth with freestanding implants: four-year prosthodontic results of a prospective study. J Am Dent Assoc 129:1097–1102View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Truhlar RS, Orenstein IH, Morris HF, Ochi S (1997) Distribution of bone quality in patients receiving endosseous dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55:38–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Roos J, Sennerby L, Lekholm U, Jemt T, Grondahl K, Albrektsson T (1997) A qualitative and quantitative method for evaluating implant success: a 5-year retrospective analysis of the Branemark implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:504–514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jaffin RA, Berman CL (1991) The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 62:2–4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bilhan H, Geckili O, Mumcu E, Bozdag E, Sunbuloglu E, Kutay O (2010) Influence of surgical technique, implant shape and diameter on the primary stability in cancellous bone. J Oral Rehabil 37:900–907View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Barikani H, Rashtak S, Akbari S, Badri S, Daneshparvar N, Rokn A (2013) The effect of implant length and diameter on the primary stability in different bone types. J Dent (Tehran) 10:449–455Google Scholar
  16. Vandeweghe S, De Ferrerre R, Tschakaloff A, De Bruyn H (2011) A wide-body implant as an alternative for sinus lift or bone grafting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:67–74View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Zarb GA, Albrektsson T (1998) Consensus report: towards optimized treatment outcomes for dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 80:641View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Bardyn T, Gedet P, Hallermann W, Buchler P (2009) Quantifying the influence of bone density and thickness on resonance frequency analysis: an in vitro study of biomechanical test materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24:1006–1014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Degidi M, Daprile G, Piattelli A (2012) Primary stability determination by means of insertion torque and RFA in a sample of 4,135 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 14:501–507Google Scholar
  20. Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, Sogo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K (2012) Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:832–836View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Glauser R, Sennerby L, Meredith N, Ree A, Lundgren AK, Gottlow J, Hammerle CHF (2004) Resonance frequency analysis of implants subjected to immediate functional occlusal loading. Successful versus failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:428–434View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ivanoff CJ, Sennerby L, Johansson C, Rangert B, Lekholm U (1997) Influence of implant diameters on the integration of screw implants. An experimental study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 26:141–148View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Isidor F. Influence of forces on peri-implant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17(Suppl 2):8-18.
  24. Hansson S, Werke M (2013) The implant thread as a retention element in cortical bone: the effect of thread size and thread profile: a finite element study. J Biomech 36:1247–1458View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Sato Y, Shindoi N, Hosokawa R, Tsuga K, Akagawa Y (2000) A biomechanical effect of wide implant placement and offset placement of three implants in the posterior partially edentulous region. J Oral Rehabil 27:15–21View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Santiago JFJ, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR, de Carvalho PS (2013) Stress analysis in bone tissue around single implants with different diameters and veneering materials: a 3-D finite element study. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 33:4700–4714View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Di Girolamo M, Maceri F, Vairo G (2008) The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 100:422–431View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Choi YS (2014) Clinical assessment to the dental treatment of bruxism: literature review. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 30:36–44View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee JY, Lee WC, Kim MS, Kim JE, Shin SW (2012) The influence of implant diameter, length and design changes on implant stability quotient (ISQ) value in artificial bone. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 50:292–298View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Sim CP, Lang NP (2000) Factors influencing resonance frequency analysis assessed by Osstell mentor during implant tissue integration: I. Instrument positioning, bone structure, implant length. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:598–604View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Krennmair G, Waldenberger O (2004) Clinical analysis of wide-diameter frialit-2 implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:710–715PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ (2011) A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol 38:667–676View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016