Objectives This randomized split-mouth clinical trial investigated the influence of implant macrogeometry on bone properties and peri-implant health parameters during the healing process.Material and methodsNinety-nine implants were placed bilaterally in posterior mandibles of 23 patients that...

Objectives This randomized split-mouth clinical trial investigated the influence of implant macrogeometry on bone properties and peri-implant health parameters during the healing process.Material and methodsNinety-nine implants were placed bilaterally in posterior mandibles of 23 patients that received at least four dental implant macrogeometries: standard geometry, Integra (IN) and three geometries inducing healing chamber: Duo (D), Compact (C), and Infra (IF). Insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were measured. Peri-implant health were monitored by visible plaque index (VPI), peri-implant inflammation (PI), and presence of calculus (CC). Data were collected during 90days. Data were assessed for normality using the asymmetry and kurtosis coefficients followed by the Shapiro-Wilk test. A one-way ANOVA was used to investigate differences in IT and linear bone dimensions between the macrogeometry groups. The repeated measurements ANOVA test or ANOVA-R was used for analysis of ISQ, VPI, and PI. Tukey-Kramer test or Student's t test was used for comparisons between the groups or within each macrogeometry.ResultsMacrogeometry did not significantly influence IT and ISQ values. The minimum ISQ was recorded after 7days (71.9512.04, p=0.0001). Intermediate ISQ was found after 14days, whenthe ISQ reached values that are statistically identical to primary stability. The VPI showed significantly higher scores for the D (0.881.03) and IN (0.72 +/- 0.94) implants after 7days. The PI was only influenced by the healing time significantly decreasing from 7 (1.07 +/- 0.89) to 21days (0.18 +/- 0.18).Conclusion Implant macrogeometry did not influence IT nor ISQ values. The relationship between IT and SS was more evident for the Duo implant, but only in the final stage of healing process.Clinical relevance Show to the clinician that the macrogeometry and drilling protocols did not interfere in the clinical behavior of the implants during the healing process. However, the IT, primary and secondary stability, is quite dependent of the surgeon experience

FUNDAÇÃO DE AMPARO À PESQUISA DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO - FAPESP

2015/14662-0; 2015/21704-1

Fechado