Bone density: its influence on implant stability after uncovering.

Primary implant stability and bone density are variables that have long been considered to be essential to achieving predictable osseointegration and long-term clinical survival. Although the dentist can control most factors associated with implant survival, bone density is the one factor that cannot be controlled. Measuring implant stability would assist in determining if an implant has integrated and is ready for the fabrication of the final prosthesis. Changes in implant stability in each type of Bone Quality (BQ-1, -2, -3, and -4), which may occur with time, have not been studied. Such information could help identify well-integrated implants and identify changes associated with impending implant failure. Several studies have used the Periotest instrument to study implant stability. Use of the Periotest implant stability will be studied during each phase of implant treatment for each bone density, and a range for clinically satisfactory integration will be suggested. Implant stability changes over time, and the changes are different for each bone density as the bone surrounding the nonhydroxyapatite implant becomes denser. This is clearly demonstrated in a postmortem histological specimen. The changes in implant stability (Periotest Values [PTVs]) are more apparent in BQ-1 and BQ-2 bone and less apparent in BQ-3 and BQ-4 bone. The Periotest is capable of providing valuable information concerning favorable or unfavorable changes in the bone-implant interface after uncovering. In addition, it can help identify when an implant is ready to be loaded. A new range of PTVs (-5 to -2) is suggested for monitoring the status of implants. Implants with PTVs more positive than -2 would indicate a bone-implant complex that may be marginal.

[1]  L Sennerby,et al.  Resonance frequency measurements of implant stability in vivo. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of resonance frequency measurements on implants in the edentulous and partially dentate maxilla. , 1997, Clinical oral implants research.

[2]  R. Truhlar,et al.  Distribution of bone quality in patients receiving endosseous dental implants. , 1997, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[3]  D van Steenberghe,et al.  Periotest: an objective clinical diagnosis of bone apposition toward implants. , 1991, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[4]  F. Lauciello,et al.  The influence of bone quality on Periotest values of endosseous dental implants at stage II surgery. , 1997, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[5]  I Herrmann,et al.  A multicenter study of overdentures supported by Brånemark implants. , 1993, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[6]  T Jemt,et al.  Early failures in 4,641 consecutively placed Brånemark dental implants: a study from stage 1 surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. , 1991, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[7]  N. Meredith,et al.  A comparison between cutting torque and resonance frequency measurements of maxillary implants: A 20-month clinical study , 1999 .

[8]  C Aparicio,et al.  Periotest method as a measure of osseointegrated oral implant stability. , 1990, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  L Sennerby,et al.  On cutting torque measurements during implant placement: a 3-year clinical prospective study. , 1999, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[10]  L Sennerby,et al.  Surgical determinants of clinical success of osseointegrated oral implants: a review of the literature. , 1998, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[11]  D van Steenberghe,et al.  A study of 589 consecutive implants supporting complete fixed prostheses. Part I: Periodontal aspects. , 1992, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.