Evaluation of stability of titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated osseointegrated dental implants: a pilot study
Language English Country Denmark Media print
Document type Clinical Trial, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- Analysis of Variance MeSH
- Coated Materials, Biocompatible * chemistry MeSH
- Durapatite * chemistry MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Mandible surgery MeSH
- Follow-Up Studies MeSH
- Statistics, Nonparametric MeSH
- Osseointegration * MeSH
- Periodontics instrumentation MeSH
- Pilot Projects MeSH
- Surface Properties MeSH
- Bicuspid MeSH
- Elasticity MeSH
- Dental Prosthesis Retention instrumentation MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Alloys MeSH
- Cuspid MeSH
- Statistics as Topic MeSH
- Titanium * chemistry MeSH
- Weight-Bearing MeSH
- Dental Implants * MeSH
- Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported MeSH
- Denture, Overlay MeSH
- Dental Prosthesis Design * MeSH
- Dental Alloys chemistry MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Clinical Trial MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Coated Materials, Biocompatible * MeSH
- Durapatite * MeSH
- Alloys MeSH
- Titanium * MeSH
- titanium alloy (TiAl6V4) MeSH Browser
- Dental Implants * MeSH
- Dental Alloys MeSH
An endosseous implant is described as osseointegrated when it is immobile in function. Objective measures of stability testing have been described. The Periotest is a commercially available device that is used for this purpose. This study was designed to measure stability of endosseous implants placed in the mandible. Implants were placed in the mandibular canine or first premolar area to support an overdenture prosthesis. Stability was evaluated through the use of a Periotest device at the time of implant placement and following one year of functional loading. Implant designs were either a screw-shaped titanium alloy or a hydroxyapatite-coated cylinder. A total of 54 implants were placed, 37 were titanium screw-shaped implants, while the remaining 17 were hydroxyapatite cylinders. Initial measurements of stability showed no difference due to implant type. Following one year of functional loading, titanium screw-shaped implants were more stable than hydroxyapatite implants (P < 0.05). The difference in implant rigidity following a period of functional loading may be an indication of a difference in osseointegration between the two implants used in this study.
References provided by Crossref.org
