Primary stability of different implant macrodesigns in a sinus floor elevation simulated model: An Ex Vivo Study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1638246/v2

Download PDF

Research Article

Primary stability of different implant macrodesigns in a sinus floor elevation simulated model: An Ex Vivo Study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1638246/v2

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

A novel type of implant (Straumann® BLX implant) has been developed for certain stability from the mechanical and biological aspects and is expected for the implant placement in atrophic maxilla with sinus floor elevation (SFE).

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the primary stability in the implants with different macrodesigns in a SFE simulated model. Primary stability defined as maximum insertion torque (MIT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were compared between this novel type of implant and other types.

Materials and Methods

Five types of Straumann® 10mm length implants (Standard Plus; SP, Tapered Effect; TE, Bone Level; BL, Bone Level Tapered; BLT and BLX) and two types of Straumann® 6mm length implants (SP short, BLX short) were used in this study. Each Implants were inserted through 5 mm–thick porcine iliac crest blocks (a SFE simulated model). Primary stability was evaluated by using MIT and ISQ.

Results

The mean values of MIT for BLX group showed significantly higher values than SP, BL (p < 0.01), and TE (p < 0.05) groups. The mean value of ISQ for BLX group was significantly higher than the other groups (p < 0.01). The mean value of MIT and ISQ for BLX and BLX short group were significantly higher than that for SP and SP short group (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

In a SFE simulated ex vivo model, BLX group showed the highest values. These results suggest that implant selection can play a crucial role in the achievement of primary stability during SFE and simultaneous implant placement.

dental implant

primary stability

sinus floor elevation

ex vivo model

maximum insertion torque

implant stability quotient

Sinus floor elevation (SFE) has been known as a surgical technique to increase the vertical height for implant placement in the atrophic maxilla. [1, 2] Two surgical procedures for SFE have been known: the lateral window technique and the crestal osteotome technique. [1] The previous studies reported that both techniques were clinically reliable due to high success rates of implants after SFE. [3–6] However, there are some considerations to decide surgical procedures such as the preexisting bone height between sinus floor and maxillary bone crest, and the timing of implant placement. [7] In addition, a recent review discussed the necessity of graft materials in SFE [7] and several studies and reviews reported that SFE with or without graft materials were clinically acceptable based on vertical bone gain, peri-implant marginal bone loss and implant survival. [8–10] The created space between the elevated Schneiderian membrane and the osseous floor of the maxillary sinus should be maintained by graft materials or a simultaneously placed implant like a tent pole (tenting technique). [11] In SFE without graft materials, primary stability must be achieved by preexisting maxillary bone.

Primary stability is defined as the mechanical stability upon implant insertion, resulting from initial contact of the implant with the bony wall of the osteotomy. [12] It has been well known that primary stability also plays a crucial role in the achievement of osseointegration. [12] Primary stability is affected by multiple factors, including bone density, surgical technique and implant design. [12–18] Above all, implant design selection can be a predictable factor for higher primary stability. Although various implant designs have shown greater stability in dense bone, primary stability can decrease remarkably in low-density bone. [13] Suitable implant designs should be considered to achieve primary stability in low-density bone. In particular, the positive effects of macrodesigns of implant such as implant shape, thread shape, thread pitch, depth, thickness and face angle on primary stability have been suggested. [19–22]Multiple designs of implants have been developed and are commercially available. As one of these implants, a novel tapered implant with a distinctive threaded design (Straumann® BLX implant) is currently available on the market. This implant system has been developed for certain stability from the mechanical and biological aspects and is expected for the implant placement in atrophic maxilla with SFE. To ensure the availability, the effect of this type of implant on primary stability and the comparisons with other types would be required.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the primary stability in the implants with different macrodesigns in a SFE simulated model. Primary stability defined as maximum insertion torque (MIT) value and implant stability quotient(ISQ)value was compared between this novel type of implant and other types from the same company. In addition, the effects of the length of implants on primary stability were also evaluated.

Specimens for a SFE simulated model (an ex vivo model)

Porcine iliac crest was used to create bone blocks (approximately 50 mm × 20 mm × 5 mm) using a water-cooled precision diamond saw (YSC-500FDX, Yutaka, Aichi, Japan) and round bur (Fig. 1). Six blocks were prepared from one specimen and totally, 42 fresh blocks were used for this study. After removal of the adjacent soft tissue, the surfaces of the bone blocks were thoroughly cleaned by rinsing in water. Each block was checked macroscopically for irregularities, and the thickness of 5 mm was verified using a precision caliper. This thickness was designed to simulate the preexisting atrophic maxillary bone.

Implants

Implants used in this study were shown in Tables 1 and 2. (Fig. 2,3)

Table 1
	implant	Drilling size
①SP	Straumann® Standard Plus implants (SP; length 10 mm, diameter 4.1 mm)	Φ 3.5
②TE	Straumann® Tapered Effect implants (TE; length 10 mm, diameter 4.1 mm)	Φ 3.5
③BL	Straumann® Bone Level implants (BL; length 10 mm, diameter 4.1 mm)	Φ 3.5
④BLT	Straumann® Bone Level Tapered implants (BLT; length 10 mm, diameter 4.1 mm)	Φ 3.5
⑤BLX	Straumann® BLX implant (BLX; length 10 mm, diameter 4.0 mm)	Φ 3.5

Table 2
	implant	Drilling size
①SP	Straumann® Standard Plus implants (SP; length 10 mm, diameter 4.1 mm)	Φ 3.5
②SP short	Straumann® Standard Plus short implants (SP short ; length 6 mm, diameter 4.1 mm)	Φ 3.5
③BLX	Straumann® BLX implant (BLX; length 10 mm, diameter 4.0 mm)	Φ 3.5
④BLX short	Straumann® BLX short implant (BLX short ; length 6 mm, diameter 4.0 mm)	Φ 3.5

All implants and surgical kits were provided from Straumann (Straumann®, Institute Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland).

Implant placement in a SFE simulated model

The implants were placed into the bone blocks with the thickness of 5 mm (a SFE simulated model). These implants were divided into 2 groups: 1) Five implants with the length of 10 mm to evaluate the effect of macrodesigns on primary stability, 2) SP and BLX with the length of 10 mm and 6 mm to evaluate the effect of macrodesigns and the lengths on primary stability. All implants were inserted from the cutting cross sections, which were consisted of only cancellous bone, according to the conventional insertion protocol of the manufacturer (Straumann®, Institute Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland). Drilling was allowed to penetrate completely through the blocks and final drill diameter was defined as 3.5 mm. The maximum insertion torque (MIT) values during implant insertion were recorded with the digital torque driver (CEDAR, Sugisaki Keiki, Ibaraki, Japan). Each group was consisted of 6 implants.

Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) value

Bone resonance frequencies were measured by OsstellTM Mentor resonance frequency analysis transducer (Model 6.0, Integration Diagnostics, Göteborg, Sweden). The transducers were mounted on the implants and tightened with a screw by hand. The frequency response of the system was recorded following manufacturer's instruction and the measurements were performed from four directions (from left, right, front and back).

Statistics

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 16.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance of the differences between the groups was determined by Tukey test following single-factor factorial ANOVA. p Values of less than 0.05 were considered to be significant.

The effects of macrodesigns on primary stability

MIT values

The mean values of MIT in 10 mm length implants were shown in Fig. 4. BLX group showed significantly higher mean value than SP, BL (p < 0.01, respectively), and TE (p < 0.05) groups. BLT group showed significantly higher mean value than BL (p < 0.05) and SP (p < 0.01) groups. There were also significant differences between BL and SP, and TE and SP (p < 0.01, respectively).

ISQ values

The mean values of ISQ were shown in Fig. 5. The mean value of BLX group was significantly higher than the other groups (p < 0.01, respectively). The mean value of SP group was significantly lower than that of TE, BL and BLT group (p < 0.01, respectively) in addition to BLX group. The mean value of TE group was significantly higher than that of BL group (p < 0.05).

The effects of macrodesigns and the lengths on primary stability

MIT values

The mean values of MIT were shown in Fig. 6. The value of BLX and BLX short group was significantly higher than that for SP and SP short group (p < 0.01, respectively). The value of BLX group was significantly higher than that of BLX short group (p < 0.05), but no difference was identified between SP and SP short groups.

ISQ values

The mean values of the Implant Stability Quotient were shown in Fig. 7. The mean values of BLX and BLX short group were significantly higher than the mean values of SP and SP short group (p < 0.01, respectively). However, there were no significant differences between 10 mm and 6 mm implants in the same macrodesigns.

Primary stability is attributed to bone quantity and quality, implant macrodesign and surgical technique. [12–18] Surgical procedure for implant placement in the edentulous posterior maxilla must be planned with caution due to limited anatomical structure and critical bone quality. [1, 2] Especially, SFE might be required to place the implants in the atrophic maxilla, and primary stability should be achieved with the preexisting bone during simultaneous implant placement.[2] Previous studies clearly demonstrated that the effect of implant macrodesign on primary stability. [12–18] Above all, thread pattern and implant body shape can contribute to primary stability and can be selected by the surgeons during preoperative planning. This study aimed to compare the primary stability depending on the macrodesigns between the novel type of implant and other types in a SFE simulated model. In addition, the effect of the lengths on primary stability was also evaluated.

At first, an ex vivo model was used to analyze primary stability. Bone blocks such as bovine rib, bovine kneecaps, porcine iliac crest and cow femur were used to evaluate primary stability in the previous studies[14–18, 21]. In this study, all implants were inserted from cross-sectional cancellous bone, not including cortical bone, which simulated poor maxillary bone. The thickness of 5 mm was designed to simulate the preexisting maxillary bone during SFE and all implants should penetrate completely through the blocks and this model was supposed to be valid.

BLX group with tapered design, comparatively wider thread pitches (1.125 mm) and larger thread depth and width presented the highest MIT and ISQ values among the implants with the length of 10 mm. Regarding thread pitches, although the previous review noted that the implants with more threads could achieve a higher bone-implant contact and stronger resistance to vertical load[19], the effects of all factors of thread designs on primary stability has been still unclear. However, a previous report showed that thread pitches, depth and width were associated with primary stability.[23] Furthermore, a recent previous study showed that narrower threads could create higher primary stability.[22] This study showed the features of BLX which were designed to enhance primary stability could enhance MIT and ISQ values in a SFE simulated model, although the features of BLX group were not in agreement with some previous findings. In addition, BLT group showed significantly higher MIT than BL and SP groups, not TE group. BLT and TE groups had tapered designs and comparatively narrower threads pitches (0.8 mm), and these might play an important role in higher MIT and ISQ values. Although BL and SP groups had parallel designs, the former had more threads due to narrower thread pitches (BL vs SP: 0.8 vs 1.25 mm), resulting in significantly higher MIT and ISQ values. These results suggested that multiple factors were associated with primary stability (MIT and ISQ values), even in a SFE simulated model that was designed to evaluate primary stability with a limited bone volume. A recent previous study that compared the primary stability between BLX implants and TE implants in a similar model (sinus lift-simultaneous implant insertion model) indicated that TE implants with wider diameter showed higher ISQ values.[24] The difference between this previous study and the present study was bone condition for implant placement. The bone specimens in this previous study was consisted of cortical bone and cancellous bone, and it was suggested that TE implants could indicated higher ISQ values because TE implants with tapered neck design could achieve higher primary stability at cortical bone. A SFE simulated model in the present study was more severe situation, which was only cancellous bone, and it was supposed that BLT and BLX groups could enhance primary stability through other mechanisms

The limited bone volume might allow the placement of only short length implant. This study also evaluated the effect of implant length on primary stability. This study clearly demonstrated that BLX groups could achieve significantly higher MIT and ISQ values than SP groups regardless of the length of implants. The effect of implant length on primary stability (ISQ values) was investigated in a previous study and it suggested higher ISQ values in longer implants.[25] However, available bone thickness was limited in the present study. Interestingly, BLX group demonstrated significantly higher MIT values than BLX short and both SP groups, although there were no differences ISQ values between BLX and BLX short groups. The differences between BLX group and BLX short group were not only the length but also the thread pitches (BLX: 1.125 mm, BLX short: 0.9 mm). Unfortunately, the detailed mechanisms of BLX macrodesigns for enhancing primary stability could not be elucidated. However, this simulated model clearly identified the effective features in the achievement of primary stability. One more unfortunate thing was that the effects of the length on primary stability were not investigated in all types of implants. Further studies will be expected in a similar situation.

This study had several limitations. Though primary stabilities of five implant types were investigated, these results cannot directly be applied to further osseointegration (secondary stability) and loading bearing capacity after the healing period. Satisfactory clinical outcomes of implants after SFE with or without graft materials have been reported,[8–11] although primary stability is one of the most important factors for osseointegration. Clinical investigations using several types of implants for SFE and simultaneous placement would be favorable to compare the macrodesigns and primary stabilities among these implants.

In a SFE simulated ex vivo model, the primary stability defined by MIT and ISQ values was affected by the implant macrodesigns and partly, the length. Especially, BLX group showed the highest values and the other implants might be clinically acceptable based on the previous reports. These results suggest that implant selection can play a crucial role in the achievement of primary stability during SFE and simultaneous implant placement.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

Concept, M.I. and T.T.; Data analysis, H.T.; Investigation, M.I. and H.T.; Methodology, T.T.; Resources, M.I.; Software, H.T.; Drafting article, M.I. and Y.O.; Critical revision of the article, Y.A.; Approval of article, K.K.; Statistics, H.T.; Funding secured by K.K. Date collection, M.I. and H.T.

All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The implants and the surgical kit were donated by Straumann Japan, Tokyo, Japan and Straumann Switzerland, Basel, Switzerland. No other financial or personal relationships exist.

Availability of date and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the first and corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not Applicable.

Danesh-Sani, S.A., P.M. Loomer, and S.S. Wallace, A comprehensive clinical review of maxillary sinus floor elevation: anatomy, techniques, biomaterials and complications. The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery, 2016. 54 7: p. 724 – 30.
Lundgren, S., et al., Sinus floor elevation procedures to enable implant placement and integration: techniques, biological aspects and clinical outcomes. Periodontol 2000, 2017. 73(1): p. 103–120. doi: 10.1111/prd.12165
Raghoebar, G.M., et al., Long-term effectiveness of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol, 2019. 46 Suppl 21: p. 307–318. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13055
Zhou, Y., et al., The comparative evaluation of transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation in sites with residual bone height ≤ 6 mm: A two-year prospective randomized study. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2021. 32(2): p. 180–191. doi: 10.1111/clr.13688
Ogino, Y., et al., Staged Sinus Floor Elevation Using Novel Low-Crystalline Carbonate Apatite Granules: Prospective Results after 3-Year Functional Loading. Materials (Basel), 2021. 14(19). doi: 10.3390/ma14195760
Farina, R., et al., Peri-implant tissue conditions following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation: 3-year results of a bi-center, randomized trial. Clin Oral Investig, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04364-y
Al-Dajani, M., Recent Trends in Sinus Lift Surgery and Their Clinical Implications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2016. 18(1): p. 204–12. doi: 10.1111/cid.12275
Moraschini, V., et al., Maxillary sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement without grafting materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2017. 46(5): p. 636–647. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.01.021
Duan, D.H., et al., Graft-Free Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Periodontol, 2017. 88(6): p. 550–564. doi: 10.1902/jop.2017.160665
Verdugo, F., et al., Long-term stable vertical bone regeneration after sinus floor elevation and simultaneous implant placement with and without grafting. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2017. 19(6): p. 1054–1060. doi: 10.1111/cid.12540
Khaled, H., M. Atef, and M. Hakam, Maxillary sinus floor elevation using hydroxyapatite nano particles vs tenting technique with simultaneous implant placement: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2019. 21(6): p. 1241–1252. doi: 10.1111/cid.12859
Javed, F., et al., Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: Factors of influence and evaluation. Interv Med Appl Sci, 2013. 5(4): p. 162–7. doi: 10.1556/imas.5.2013.4.3
Molly, L., Bone density and primary stability in implant therapy. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2006. 17 Suppl 2: p. 124 – 35. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01356.x
Romanos, G.E., et al., In vitro assessment of primary stability of Straumann® implant designs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2014. 16(1): p. 89–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00464.x
Romanos, G.E., et al., Role of clinician's experience and implant design on implant stability. An ex vivo study in artificial soft bones. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2014. 16(2): p. 166–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00470.x
Toyoshima, T., et al., Primary Stability of a Hybrid Implant Compared with Tapered and Cylindrical Implants in an Ex Vivo Model. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2015. 17(5): p. 950–6. doi: 10.1111/cid.12205
Falco, A., M. Berardini, and P. Trisi, Correlation Between Implant Geometry, Implant Surface, Insertion Torque, and Primary Stability: In Vitro Biomechanical Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2018. 33(4): p. 824–830. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6285
Herrero-Climent, M., et al., Influence of Implant Design and Under-Preparation of the Implant Site on Implant Primary Stability. An In Vitro Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020. 17(12). doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124436
Abuhussein, H., et al., The effect of thread pattern upon implant osseointegration. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2010. 21(2): p. 129–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01800.x
Lozano-Carrascal, N., et al., Effect of implant macro-design on primary stability: A prospective clinical study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 2016. 21(2): p. e214-21. doi: 10.4317/medoral.21024
Almutairi, A.S., M.A. Walid, and M.A. Alkhodary, The effect of osseodensification and different thread designs on the dental implant primary stability. F1000Res, 2018. 7: p. 1898. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.17292.1
Yamaguchi, Y., et al., Effects of implant thread design on primary stability-a comparison between single- and double-threaded implants in an artificial bone model. Int J Implant Dent, 2020. 6(1): p. 42. doi: 10.1186/s40729-020-00239-1
Lan, T.H., et al., Biomechanical analysis of alveolar bone stress around implants with different thread designs and pitches in the mandibular molar area. Clin Oral Investig, 2012. 16(2): p. 363–9. doi: 10.1007/s00784-011-0517-z
Emmert, M., et al., Comparative assessment of the primary stability of Straumann® BLX implant design using an in-vitro sinus lift-simultaneous implant insertion model. J Oral Implantol, 2021. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-20-00411
Bataineh, A.B. and A.M. Al-Dakes, The influence of length of implant on primary stability: An in vitro study using resonance frequency analysis. J Clin Exp Dent, 2017. 9(1): p. e1-e6. doi: 10.4317/jced.53302

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major revision
27 Jun, 2022
Reviews received at journal
17 Jun, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
15 Jun, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
15 Jun, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
14 Jun, 2022
Editor invited by journal
06 Jun, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
06 Jun, 2022
First submitted to journal
23 May, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Primary stability of different implant macrodesigns in a sinus floor elevation simulated model: An Ex Vivo Study

Status:

Version 2

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Results

ISQ values

ISQ values

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 2