Seidel Daniel, Neugebauer Jörg, Dhom Günter, Weinhold Octavio, Zimmermann Kai-Peter, Sader Robert, Weigl Paul, Gehrke Peter
Private Practice and Independent Researcher, 09117 Chemnitz, Germany.
Department for Oral and Craniomaxillofacial and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne Faculty of Medicine, 50931 Cologne, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2025 Apr 28;14(9):3040. doi: 10.3390/jcm14093040.
: We wished to compare the primary and secondary stability of dental implants with a progressive design (PL) versus a conventional thread design (SL) across various clinical settings. : A total of 100 implants (50 PL and 50 SL) were placed in 62 patients. The stability of the implants was assessed using a resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at the time of placement (T1) and 20 weeks postoperatively before prosthetic loading (T2). Bone density was measured in Hounsfield units (HU) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The ISQ values were recorded for each group and anatomical region, including both inter- and intragroup comparisons over time. : Both implant designs showed a significant increase in stability during the healing period. At T1, the ISQ values were comparable between groups (SL: 71.3 ± 8.6; PL: 71.1 ± 8.7). At T2, the ISQ values increased significantly in both groups (SL and PL: < 0.01), with no statistically significant difference in the degree of the gain in stability. The ISQ values were generally lower in the maxilla compared to those in the mandible. In the posterior mandible, the SL implants demonstrated a greater increase in stability compared to that with the PL implants. A strong positive correlation between the HU and ISQ values was observed for both groups (SL: r = 0.95; PL: r = 1.00), without reaching statistical significance. : While the progressive thread design aims to enhance the primary stability, it did not outperform the conventional design in this study. Both implant types proved effective in achieving stable and predictable clinical outcomes.
我们希望比较渐进式设计（PL）与传统螺纹设计（SL）的牙科种植体在各种临床环境中的初期稳定性和二期稳定性。共有100枚种植体（50枚PL和50枚SL）植入62例患者体内。在种植体植入时（T1）以及术后20周假体加载前（T2），使用共振频率分析（RFA）评估种植体的稳定性。使用锥形束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）以亨氏单位（HU）测量骨密度。记录每组和每个解剖区域的ISQ值，包括不同时间的组间和组内比较。两种种植体设计在愈合期均显示出稳定性显著增加。在T1时，两组间的ISQ值相当（SL：71.3±8.6；PL：71.1±8.7）。在T2时，两组的ISQ值均显著增加（SL和PL：<0.01），稳定性增加程度无统计学显著差异。上颌的ISQ值通常低于下颌。在下颌后部，与PL种植体相比，SL种植体的稳定性增加更大。两组的HU值和ISQ值之间均观察到强正相关（SL：r = 0.95；PL：r = 1.00），但未达到统计学显著性。虽然渐进式螺纹设计旨在提高初期稳定性，但在本研究中其表现并未优于传统设计。两种种植体类型在实现稳定且可预测的临床结果方面均被证明是有效的。
