Osseointegration of dental implants without primary stability: an experimental study in sheep

Omed Ikram Shihab; Abduljaleel Azad Samad; Hozak Zahir Ali; Othman A. Omer; Ahmed A. Haider

doi:10.15218/zjms.2017.011

Authors

Omed Ikram Shihab Department of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq
Abduljaleel Azad Samad Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.
Hozak Zahir Ali Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.
Othman A. Omer Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.
Ahmed A. Haider Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15218/zjms.2017.011

Keywords:

Dental implant, Osseointegration, Primary stability

Abstract

Background and objective: Primary implant stability is considered necessary for achieving and maintaining osseointegration. This experimental study aimed to evaluate the outcome of implants without primary stability, clinically and radiographically.

Methods: Two adult sheep (3-4 years of age), 70 kg in weight, were included in the study. After sedation and local anesthesia, the lateral side of the basal bone of mandible is exposed by a single long incision. The implant bed performed in the inferior border of the basal bone of mandible drilling to 5 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length. Five implants were inserted into the basal bone of mandible for each side (right and left), but the sizes of inserted implant was 3.8 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length, after 4 months the 2 sheep were sacrificed and the universal torque ratchet was used to measure the stability of the implant by a counter torque 30 N/cm test. Cone Beam Tomography (CBCT) was used to evaluate the implants radiographically.

Results: Nineteen (from 20) implants successfully tolerated a 30 N/cm countertorque test comprising (95%). Only one implant failed to osseointegrate (5%). During the healing period, no any adverse clinical signs reported.

Conclusion: Dental implants may have a chance to osseointegrate even in the lack of primary stability.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Brunski JB. In vivo bone response to biomechanical loading at the bone/dental-implant interface. Adv Dent Res 1999; 13:99–119.

Kim DG. Micromechanical Analysis of Bone at a Bone-Implant Interface. PhD Dissertation. Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; 2001.

Fazel A, Aalai S, Rismanchian M, Sadr-Eshkevari P. Micromotion and stress distribution of immediate loaded implants: A finite element analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009; 11:267–71.

Javed F and Romanos GE. The role of primary stability for successful immediate loading of dental implants: A literature review. J Dent 2010; 38:612–20.

Brånemark PI. Introduction to osseointegration. In: Brånemark PI, Janal MN, Coelho PG.editors. Tissue integrated prostheses. Chicago (IL): Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc; 1985: p. 29.

Ottoni JM, Oliveira ZF, Mansini R, Cabral AM. Correlation between placement torque and survival of single-tooth implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20:769–76.

Irinakis T, Wiebe C. Initial torque stability of a new bone condensing dental implant. A cohort study of 140 consecutively placed implants. J Oral Implantol 2009; 35:277–82.

Kawahara H, Kawahara D, Hayakawa M, Tamai Y, Kuremoto T, Matsuda S. Osseointegration under immediate loading: Biomechanical stresss train and bone formation-resorption. Implant Dent 2003; 12:61–8.

Freitas AC, Bonfante EA, Giro G, Janal MN, Coelho PG. The effect of implant design on insertion torque and immediate micromotion. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23:113–8.

Ostman PO, Hellman M, Sennerby L. Direct implant loading in the edentulous maxilla using a bone density-adapted surgical protocol and primary implant stability criteria for inclusion. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005; 7:60–9.

Hui E, Chow J, Li D, Liu J, Wat P, Law H. Immediate provisional for single-tooth implant replacement with Brånemark system: preliminary report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001; 3:79–86.

Li W, Chow J, Hui E, Lee PK, Chow R. Retrospective study on immediate functional loading of edentulous maxillas and mandibles with 690 implants, up to 71 months of follow-up. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67:2653–62.

Esposito M, Hirsch JM, lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. Eur J Oral Sd 1998; 106:721–64.

Sennerby l, Roos J. Surgical determinants of clinical success of osseointegrated implants. lnt J Prosthodont 1998; 11:408–20.

Chong L, Khocht A, Suzuki JB, Gaughan J. Effect of implant design on initial stability of tapered implants. J Oral Implantol 2009; 35:130–5.

Romanos GE, Johansson CB. Immediate loading with complete implant-supported restorations in an edentulous heavy smoker: Histologic and histomorphometric analyses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20:282–90.

Romanos GE, Toh CG, Siar CH, Wicht H, Yacoob H, Nentwig GH. Bone-implant interface around titanium implants under different loading conditions: a histomorphometrical analysis in the Macaca fascicularis monkey. J Periodontol 2003; 74:1483–90.

Delaunay CP, Kapandji AI. Acetabular screw rings and surface treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997; 340:130–41.

Davies JE. Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11:391–401.