Submitted:
08 June 2023
Posted:
09 June 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Implants Description
- TAC conical implants (Aon Implants, Grisignano di Zocco, Italy);
- INTRALOCK conical implants (Intra-Lock System Europa Spa, Salerno, Italy);
- CYROTH cylindrical implants (Aon Implants, Grisignano di Zocco, Italy).
2.2. Drilling Protocol and Implants Insertion
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Insertion Torque Evaluation
3.2. Removal Torque Evaluation
2.3. Resonance Frequency Analysis Evaluation
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gautam, S.; Bhatnagar, D.; Bansal, D.; Batra, H.; Goyal, N. Recent Advancements in Nanomaterials for Biomedical Implants. Biomed. Eng. Adv. 2022, 100029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Araújo, M.G.; Silva, C.O.; Souza, A.B.; Sukekava, F. Socket Healing with and without Immediate Implant Placement. Periodontol. 2000 2019, 79, 168–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dhami, B.; Shrestha, P.; Gupta, S.; Pandey, N. Immediate Implant Placement: Current Concepts. J. Nepal. Soc. Periodontol. Oral Implantol. 2019, 3, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulte, W.; Heimke, G. The Tübinger Immediate Implant. Quintessenz 1976, 27, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Buser, D.; Chappuis, V.; Belser, U.C.; Chen, S. Implant Placement Post Extraction in Esthetic Single Tooth Sites: When Immediate, When Early, When Late? Periodontol. 2000 2017, 73, 84–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mura, P. Immediate Loading of Tapered Implants Placed in Postextraction Sockets: Retrospective Analysis of the 5-year Clinical Outcome. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 14, 565–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Han, C.-H.; Mangano, F.; Mortellaro, C.; Park, K.-B. Immediate Loading of Tapered Implants Placed in Postextraction Sockets and Healed Sites. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2016, 27, 1220–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mello, C.C.; Lemos, C.A.A.; Verri, F.R.; Dos Santos, D.M.; Goiato, M.C.; Pellizzer, E.P. Immediate Implant Placement into Fresh Extraction Sockets versus Delayed Implants into Healed Sockets: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 46, 1162–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X.; Teng, F.; Zhao, A.; Wu, Y.; Yu, D. Effects of Post-Extraction Alveolar Ridge Preservation versus Immediate Implant Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Evid. Based. Dent. Pract. 2022, 101734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chappuis, V.; Araújo, M.G.; Buser, D. Clinical Relevance of Dimensional Bone and Soft Tissue Alterations Post-extraction in Esthetic Sites. Periodontol. 2000 2017, 73, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kashi, A.; Gupta, B.; Malmstrom, H.; Romanos, G.E. Primary Stability of Implants Placed at Different Angulations in Artificial Bone. Implant Dent. 2015, 24, 92–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karl, M.; Irastorza-Landa, A. Does Implant Design Affect Primary Stability in Extraction Sites. Quintessence Int 2017, 48, 219–224. [Google Scholar]
- Yim, H.; Lim, H.-C.; Hong, J.-Y.; Shin, S.-I.; Chung, J.-H.; Herr, Y.; Shin, S.-Y. Primary Stability of Implants with Peri-Implant Bone Defects of Various Widths: An in Vitro Investigation. J. Periodontal Implant Sci. 2019, 49, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Stefano, D.A.; Piattelli, A.; Iezzi, G.; Orlando, F.; Arosio, P. Cortical Thickness, Bone Density, and the Insertion Torque/Depth Integral: A Study Using Polyurethane Foam Blocks. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2021, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrini, M.; Tumedei, M.; Cipollina, A.; D’Ercole, S.; Carmine, M.S. Di; Piattelli, A.; Re, M.; Iezzi, G. Fixture Length and Primary Stability: An In Vitro Study on Polyurethane Foam. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollensteiner, M.; Fürst, D.; Esterer, B.; Augat, P.; Schrödl, F.; Hunger, S.; Malek, M.; Stephan, D.; Schrempf, A. Novel Bone Surrogates for Cranial Surgery Training. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2017, 72, 49–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Standard Specification for Rigid Polyurethane Foam for Use as a Standard Material for Testing Orthopedic Devices and Instruments. ASTM F-1839-08; . ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2021.
- Comuzzi, L.; Tumedei, M.; Romasco, T.; Petrini, M.; Afrashtehfar, K.I.; Inchingolo, F.; Piattelli, A.; Di Pietro, N. Insertion Torque, Removal Torque, and Resonance Frequency Analysis Values of Ultrashort, Short, and Standard Dental Implants: An In Vitro Study on Polyurethane Foam Sheets. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsolaki, I.N.; Tonsekar, P.P.; Najafi, B.; Drew, H.J.; Sullivan, A.J.; Petrov, S.D. Comparison of Osteotome and Conventional Drilling Techniques for Primary Implant Stability: An In Vitro Study. J. Oral Implant. 2016, 42, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Patel, P.S.; Shepherd, D.E.; Hukins, D.W. Compressive properties of commercially available polyurethane foams as mechanical models for osteoporotic human cancellous bone. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008, 9, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Comuzzi, L.; Tumedei, M.; Covani, U.; Romasco, T.; Petrini, M.; Montesani, L.; Piattelli, A.; Di Pietro, N. Primary Stability Assessment of Conical Implants in Under-Prepared Sites: An In Vitro Study in Low-Density Polyurethane Foams. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staedt, H.; Palarie, V.; Staedt, A.; Wolf, J.M.; Lehmann, K.M.; Ottl, P.; Kämmerer, P.W. Primary Stability of Cylindrical and Conical Dental Implants in Relation to Insertion Torque—a Comparative Ex Vivo Evaluation. Implant Dent. 2017, 26, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dos Santos, M.V.; Elias, C.N.; Cavalcanti Lima, J.H. The Effects of Superficial Roughness and Design on the Primary Stability of Dental Implants. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2011, 13, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pommer, B.; Hof, M.; Fädler, A.; Gahleitner, A.; Watzek, G.; Watzak, G. Primary implant stability in the atrophic sinus floor of human cadaver maxillae: impact of residual ridge height, bone density, and implant diameter. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014, 2, 109–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wilson Jr, T.G.; Miller, R.J.; Trushkowsky, R.; Dard, M. Tapered Implants in Dentistry: Revitalizing Concepts with Technology: A Review. Adv. Dent. Res. 2016, 28, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chu, S.J.; Levin, B.P.; Egbert, N.; Saito, H.; Nevins, M. Use of a Novel Implant with an Inverted Body-Shift and Prosthetic Angle Correction Design for Immediate Tooth Replacement in the Esthetic Zone: A Clinical Case Series. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2021, 2, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lages, F.S.; Douglas-de Oliveira, D.W.; Costa, F.O. Relationship between implant stability measurements obtained by insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis: A systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018, 1, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comuzzi, L.; Tumedei, M.; Di Pietro, N.; Romasco, T.; Montesani, L.; Piattelli, A.; Covani, U. Are Implant Threads Important for Implant Stability? An In Vitro Study Using Low-Density Polyurethane Sheets. Eng 2023, 4, 1167–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASTM F1839; Standard Specification for Rigid Polyurethane Foam for Use as a Standard Material for Testing Orthopaedic Devices and Instruments. American Society for Testing and Materials; ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]








| IT | 10 PCF | 20 PCF | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NO CORTICAL | CORTICAL | NO CORTICAL | CORTICAL | |||||||||||||
| TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | |||||
| Min | 5.90 | 6.90 | 6.50 | 14.70 | 15.70 | 16.60 | 24.50 | 22.50 | 24.50 | 23.50 | 28.40 | 25.50 | ||||
| Max | 6.90 | 7.80 | 6.90 | 15.70 | 16.70 | 17.60 | 25.50 | 24.50 | 27.40 | 25.50 | 37.20 | 28.40 | ||||
| Mean | 6.39 | 7.44 | 6.73 | 15.16 | 16.23 | 17.06 | 24.93 | 23.83 | 26.42 | 24.63 | 32.44 | 26.87 | ||||
| SD (±) | 0.41 | 0.34 | 0.16 | 0.30 | 0.36 | 0.30 | 0.34 | 0.59 | 0.96 | 0.72 | 3.28 | 1.04 | ||||
| RT | 10 PCF | 20 PCF | ||||||||||||||
| NO CORTICAL | CORTICAL | NO CORTICAL | CORTICAL | |||||||||||||
| TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | |||||
| Min | 4.70 | 4.90 | 4.80 | 12.70 | 10.00 | 12.00 | 16.60 | 16.90 | 18.60 | 20.50 | 21.50 | 19.70 | ||||
| Max | 4.90 | 4.90 | 5.10 | 13.70 | 11.00 | 13.00 | 18.60 | 18.60 | 21.50 | 22.50 | 23.50 | 22.50 | ||||
| Mean | 4.81 | 4.90 | 4.95 | 13.20 | 10.72 | 12.40 | 17.70 | 17.94 | 20.33 | 21.60 | 22.41 | 21.15 | ||||
| SD (±) | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.31 | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.63 | 0.57 | 0.98 | 0.75 | 0.72 | 1.14 | ||||
| RFA - BL | 10 PCF | 20 PCF | ||||||||||||||
| NO CORTICAL | CORTICAL | NO CORTICAL | CORTICAL | |||||||||||||
| TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | |||||
| Min | 50.00 | 35.00 | 44.00 | 60.00 | 55.00 | 56.00 | 62.00 | 53.00 | 61.00 | 61.00 | 52.00 | 62.00 | ||||
| Max | 52.00 | 38.00 | 46.00 | 61.00 | 56.00 | 57.00 | 63.00 | 55.00 | 63.00 | 62.00 | 55.00 | 64.00 | ||||
| Mean | 51.00 | 36.80 | 45.40 | 60.20 | 55.50 | 56.40 | 62.30 | 54.20 | 62.20 | 61.50 | 53.30 | 62.60 | ||||
| SD (±) | 0.82 | 1.23 | 0.70 | 0.42 | 0.53 | 0.52 | 0.48 | 0.92 | 0.63 | 0.53 | 0.95 | 0.84 | ||||
| RFA - MD | 10 PCF | 20 PCF | ||||||||||||||
| NO CORTICAL | CORTICAL | NO CORTICAL | CORTICAL | |||||||||||||
| TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | TAC | INTRALOCK | CYROTH | |||||
| Min | 50.00 | 35.00 | 44.00 | 60.00 | 55.00 | 56.00 | 62.00 | 53.00 | 61.00 | 61.00 | 52.00 | 62.00 | ||||
| Max | 52.00 | 38.00 | 46.00 | 61.00 | 57.00 | 57.00 | 63.00 | 55.00 | 63.00 | 62.00 | 58.00 | 64.00 | ||||
| Mean | 51.20 | 37.00 | 45.30 | 60.40 | 56.00 | 56.50 | 62.20 | 54.40 | 62.10 | 61.50 | 54.30 | 62.90 | ||||
| SD (±) | 0.92 | 1.25 | 0.82 | 0.52 | 0.82 | 0.53 | 0.42 | 0.70 | 0.74 | 0.53 | 2.21 | 0.74 | ||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).