Private Dental Practice Kozle, 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia.
Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montenegro, 81101 Podgorica, Montenegro.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2024 Sep 21;60(9):1546. doi: 10.3390/medicina60091546.
: The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate the primary and secondary stability of dental implants with different macrodesigns using resonance frequency analysis and to determine whether implant design and length influence implant stability. : This study included 48 healthy patients receiving dental implants, and a pre-implant planning protocol was used, which involved detailed bone analysis, clinical examinations, and Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) analysis. The implants were of various types and dimensions (Alpha-Bio Tec (Israel), DFI, SPI, and NEO), and the surgical procedures were performed using standard methods. Implant stability was measured using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) immediately after placement and after 3, 6, and 12 months. The total number of implants placed in all patients was 96. : The average primary stability value for 10 mm SPI implants placed in the maxilla was 68.2 ± 1.7 Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) units, while for 10 mm NEO implants, it was 74.0 ± 0.9. The average primary stability value for a 10 mm DFI implant placed in the mandible was 72.8 ± 1.2 ISQ, while for a 10 mm NEO implant placed in the mandible, it was 76.3 ± 0.8 ISQ. Based on the Friedman ANOVA test, the differences in the stability measurements for the 10 mm and 11.5 mm SPI implants and for the 10 mm and 11.5 mm NEO implants in the maxilla on day 0 and after 3, 6, and 12 months were significant at < 0.05. Similarly, based on the Friedman ANOVA test, the differences in the stability measurements for the 10 mm and 11.5 mm DFI implants and for the 10 mm and 11.5 mm NEO implants in the mandible on day 0 and after 3, 6, and 12 months were significant at < 0.05 ( = 0.00000). : Universal tapered implants of the NEO type stood out as the optimal choice, as they provided statistically significantly higher primary stability in both soft and hard bone types compared to other implants. The implant length did not significantly affect this stability.
: 本研究旨在通过共振频率分析临床评估不同宏观设计的牙科种植体的初始稳定性和继发性稳定性，并确定种植体设计和长度是否会影响种植体稳定性。 : 本研究纳入了 48 名接受牙种植体的健康患者，并使用预植入规划方案，包括详细的骨分析、临床检查和锥形束 CT（CBCT）分析。种植体的类型和尺寸各不相同（以色列的 Alpha-Bio Tec、DFI、SPI 和 NEO），手术程序采用标准方法进行。植入物稳定性使用共振频率分析（RFA）在植入后立即以及植入后 3、6 和 12 个月进行测量。所有患者共植入 96 个种植体。 : 上颌中 10mm SPI 种植体的平均初始稳定性值为 68.2±1.7 种植体稳定性指数（ISQ）单位，而下颌中 10mm NEO 种植体的平均初始稳定性值为 74.0±0.9。下颌中 10mm DFI 种植体的平均初始稳定性值为 72.8±1.2 ISQ，而下颌中 10mm NEO 种植体的平均初始稳定性值为 76.3±0.8 ISQ。基于 Friedman ANOVA 检验，上颌中 10mm 和 11.5mm SPI 种植体以及 10mm 和 11.5mm NEO 种植体在 0 天和植入后 3、6 和 12 个月时的稳定性测量值的差异具有统计学意义（ < 0.05）。同样，基于 Friedman ANOVA 检验，下颌中 10mm 和 11.5mm DFI 种植体以及 10mm 和 11.5mm NEO 种植体在 0 天和植入后 3、6 和 12 个月时的稳定性测量值的差异具有统计学意义（ < 0.05）（ = 0.00000）。 : 从统计学角度来看，NEO 型通用锥形种植体是最佳选择，因为与其他种植体相比，它们在软硬骨中均能提供更高的初始稳定性。种植体长度对这种稳定性没有显著影响。
