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

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.

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

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.

Resumo O objetivo deste estudo controlado randomizado de boca dividida foi avaliar a estabilidade primária e secundária de implantes híbridos com diferentes configurações de rosca e superfícies hidrofílicas. Vinte pacientes com maxila parcialmente edêntula foram selecionados. Esses pacientes receberam dois tipos de implantes com a mesma superfície hidrofílica: Grupo CTP: Implante cilíndrico-cônico com roscas perfurantes; Grupo CTH: Implante cilíndrico-cônico com roscas perfurantes e condensadoras. Os parâmetros de estabilidade primária e secundária foram medidos por análise de torque de inserção e frequência de ressonância no momento da colocação do implante e 7, 28, 56 e 90 dias após o procedimento cirúrgico. O teste t-pareado foi utilizado para comparação dos dados de estabilidade entre os grupos. A análise estatística foi executada levando-se em consideração um nível de confiança de 95%. Constatou-se que os implantes do grupo CTH apresentaram maiores valores de estabilidade primária no momento da colocação do implante, devido ao maior ISQ (63.61 ± 9.44 vs. 40.59 ±7.46) e torque de inserção (36.92 ± 16.50 Ncm vs. 28.00 ± 14.40 Ncm), do que os implantes do grupo CTP. Implantes do grupo CTH apresentaram valores de ISQ superiores em todos os períodos de acompanhamento: 7 dias (68.67 ± 7.60 vs. 41.55 ± 9.07), 28 dias (68.61 ± 5.98 vs. 47.90 ±13.10), 56 dias (74.09 ± 3.96 vs. 55.85 ± 13.18) e 90 dias (75.45 ± 4.02 vs. 63.47 ± 6.92). Os implantes híbridos com roscas perfurantes e condensantes demonstraram maior estabilidade do que os implantes híbridos com apenas roscas perfurantes.

Primary and Secondary Stability of Implants with Hydrophilic Surfaces in the Posterior Maxilla: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this split-mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the primary and secondary stability of implants with hydrophilic surfaces in comparison to implants with conventional surfaces in the posterior region of the maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with a bilateral edentulous ridge in the posterior area of the maxilla randomly received implants with two types of surfaces: (1) implants with the surface modified by double acid-etching and sandblasting (DAS, n = 20); and (2) implants with the surface modified by double acid-etching and sandblasting, stored in 0.9% saline solution to confer highly hydrophilic properties (DAS-H, n = 20) on the surface. The implants presented the same macrostructure with a hybrid design. The resonance frequency analysis was performed in order to obtain the implant stability quotient (ISQ) using Osstell. The ISQ analyses were performed just after placement of the implant (primary stability) and at 28, 40, and 90 days after the surgical procedure (secondary stability). RESULTS: There were no differences between the DAS and DAS-H surfaces in the primary stability or during the conversion of the primary to the secondary stability; however, there was a reduction in the stability of the implants at 28 days, which increased significantly at 40 and 90 days in both surfaces. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the surface wettability of implants with a hybrid macrostructure did not increase the primary and secondary implant stability in the posterior region of the maxilla.