Display options
Cite
Aldahlawi S, Demeter A, Irinakis T. The effect of implant placement torque on crestal bone remodeling after 1 year of loading. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2018;10:203-209doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S174895.
Aldahlawi, S., Demeter, A., & Irinakis, T. (2018). The effect of implant placement torque on crestal bone remodeling after 1 year of loading. Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 10203-209. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S174895
Aldahlawi, Salwa, et al. "The effect of implant placement torque on crestal bone remodeling after 1 year of loading." Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry vol. 10 (2018): 203-209. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S174895
Aldahlawi S, Demeter A, Irinakis T. The effect of implant placement torque on crestal bone remodeling after 1 year of loading. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2018 Oct 09;10:203-209. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S174895. eCollection 2018. PMID: 30349398; PMCID: PMC6183656.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2018 Oct 09;10:203-209. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S174895. eCollection 2018.

The effect of implant placement torque on crestal bone remodeling after 1 year of loading.

Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry

Salwa Aldahlawi, Angela Demeter, Tassos Irinakis

Affiliations

  1. Department of Basic and Clinical Oral Sciences, College of Dentistry, Umm Al-Qura University, Mecca, Saudi Arabia, [email protected].
  2. Private Practice, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  3. Graduate Periodontic Program, Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

PMID: 30349398 PMCID: PMC6183656 DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S174895

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare crestal bone levels (CBLs) after 1 year of loading of self-tapping bone condensing implants placed with high insertion torque (IT) compared to those placed with lower IT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 66 consecutive patients who received at least one self-tapping bone condensing implant and were in function for at least 1 year was conducted. On the basis of intrasurgical notes documenting the implant IT, the patient population was divided into group A (implant IT, >55 Ncm) and group B (IT, <55 Ncm). Radiographs taken immediately after insertion and during annual follow-up appointments were evaluated for detecting crestal bone loss. The relationship between IT and crestal bone loss, bone density, and jaw location were analyzed, and a

RESULTS: A total of 113 self-tapping bone condensing NobelActive™ implants were placed. The average follow-up period from the placement of the implant restoration was 12.87 (±4.83) months. Six implants were classified as failures resulting in overall survival rate of 94.6%. Implants in group A had a mean IT of 67.35 ± 4.0 Ncm, whereas implants in the group B had a mean IT of 37.9 ± 12.62 Ncm. Implants in group A had statistically significant crestal bone loss compared to implants in group B (0.95 ± 1.60 and 0.18 ± 0.68 mm, respectively). Group A implants placed in the mandible showed significantly more pronounced crestal bone loss (2.12 ± 1.99 mm) compared to those placed in the maxilla (0.25 ± 0.65 mm;

CONCLUSION: Implants inserted with high IT (>55 Ncm) showed more peri-implant bone remodeling than implants inserted with a less assertive IT (<55 Ncm). Bone density and jaw location affect IT and CBLs.

Keywords: crestal bone level; dental implant; insertion torque; marginal bone level; nobelactive; torque

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  1. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 May;22(5):567-70 - PubMed
  2. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Apr;15(2):227-33 - PubMed
  3. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2017 Feb;38(2):88-95; quiz 96 - PubMed
  4. Compendium. 1994 Feb;15(2):152, 154-6, 158 passim; quiz 162 - PubMed
  5. Quintessence Int. 2018 Jan 22;:189-198 - PubMed
  6. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Jul-Aug;30(4):767-72 - PubMed
  7. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Jul;23(7):767-74 - PubMed
  8. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Mar;24(3):297-304 - PubMed
  9. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:222-38 - PubMed
  10. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2010 Jan-Feb;31(1):66-70, 72-7 - PubMed
  11. Implant Dent. 2016 Aug;25(4):532-40 - PubMed
  12. J Prosthet Dent. 2009 May;101(5):293-305 - PubMed
  13. J Oral Implantol. 2009;35(6):283-8 - PubMed
  14. J Oral Implantol. 2009;35(6):277-82 - PubMed
  15. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Jun;20(3):322-332 - PubMed
  16. Int J Prosthodont. 1993 Mar-Apr;6(2):95-105 - PubMed
  17. J Craniofac Surg. 2013 May;24(3):860-5 - PubMed
  18. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Nov-Dec;26(6):1333-43 - PubMed
  19. J Oral Implantol. 2014 Aug;40(4):455-8 - PubMed
  20. Minerva Stomatol. 2017 Jul 04;:null - PubMed
  21. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016 Jun;18(3):588-600 - PubMed
  22. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Mar-Apr;31(2):398-405 - PubMed
  23. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Jul-Aug;26(4):837-49 - PubMed

Publication Types