THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ACQUA AND CONVENTIONAL DENTAL IMPLANTS

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 General dentist at Fawzy Moaaz pediatric hospital, the ministry of health, Egypt

2 Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt

3 lecturer of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Missing teeth were a problem in the 1950s and 1960s till the real use of titanium dental implants to restore teeth. Scientists tried hard over many years to improve the surface treatment of the dental implant in order to improve the function and longevity of it and to reduce the chances of its failure. New materials and techniques are used to change the surface texture, component, and its surface energy. OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of the delayed placement of ACQUA dental implant versus the conventional type for replacement of maxillary premolar teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study was conducted on 14 patients. Patients were divided equally into two groups. Group “A” patients received ACQUA Alvium Neodent dental implant while group “B” patients received conventional Alvium dental implants. All Patients had missing maxillary premolars teeth. Patients were between 27- 48 years old. All patients were operated under local anesthesia. The surgical stent was checked for proper seating in the planned site of the dental implant. A full thickness mucoperiosteal flap was performed. Follow-up was done daily for the first week, then weekly for the first month, then monthly for six months. RESULTS: Clinically no edema was shown in all patients. Other clinical parameters were recorded during the follow-up period as the gingival index, implant stability, and presence or absence of infection. Radiographic results showed that there was a significant difference between ACQUA and conventional Alvium dental implant which proved the higher initial stability of ACQUA Alvium Implants compared to conventional ones. Marginal bone height did not show any significant difference between ACQUA implants and conventional implants. CONCLUSIONS: ACQUA dental implant showed more primary stability than conventional Alvium implant. Additionally, ACQUA showed more bone intensity compared to the other type

Keywords

References

  1. Brunski JB. Biomechanical factors are affecting the bone-dental implant interface. Clin Mater. 1992;10:153-201.
  2. Elias CN, Oshida Y, Lima JHC, Muller CA. The relationship between surface properties (roughness, wettability, and morphology) of titanium and dental implant removal torque. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2008;1:234-42.
  3. Martin C, Thoms, G, Melo ACM, Fontúo FK. The peri-implant bone response following immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone and with immediate provisionalization--a case series study. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;19:157-63.
  4. Park JC, Lee JW, Kim SM, Lee JH. Implant stabilityMeasuring devices and randomized clinical trial for ISQ value change pattern measured from two different directions by magnetic RFA. InTech 2011;5:111-29.
  5. Junker R, Dimakis A, Thoneick M, Jansen JA. Effects of implant surface coatings and composition on bone integration: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:185-206.
  6. Ohnhaus EE, Adler R. Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: a comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analog scale. Pain. 1975;1:379-84.
  7. Closs SJ, Barr B, Briggs M, Cash K, Seers K. A comparison of five pain assessment scales for nursing home residents with varying degrees of cognitive impairment. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2004;27:196- 205.
  8. Carlsson AM. Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analog scale. Pain. 1983;16:87-101.
  9. Rodriguez CS. Pain measurement in the elderly: a review. Pain Manag Nurs. 2001;2:38-46.
  10. Lobene RR, Weatherford T, Ross NM, Lamm RA, Menaker L. A modified gingival index for use in clinical trials. Clin Prev Dent.1986;8:3-6.
  11. Löe H. The gingival index, the plaque index and the retention index systems. J Periodontol. 1967;38:610- 6.
  12. Khan SN, Warkhedkar RM, Shyam AK. Analysis of the Hounsfield unit of human bones for strength evaluation. Procedia Mater. Sci. 2014;6:512-9.
  13. Mendoza G, Mendoza DB, Aragao FJ, Cooper LF. Advancing dental implant surface technology--from micron-to nanotopography. Biomaterials. 2008;29:3822-35.
  14. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa consensus conference. Implant Dent. 2008;17:5-15.
  15. Bain CA, Moy PK. The association between the failure of dental implants and cigarette smoking. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8: 609-15.
  16. Schmitt A, Zarb GA. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants for single-tooth replacement. Int J Prosthodont. 1993;6: 197-202.
  17. Esposito M, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV. The role of implant surface modifications, shape, and material on the success of osseointegrated dental implants. A Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2005;13: 15-31.
  18. Quesada-Garcia MP, Prados-Sanchez E, OlmedoGaya MV, Munoz-Soto E, Gonzílez-Rodrguez MP, Vallecillo-Capilla M. Measurement of dental implant stability by resonance frequency analysis: a review of the literature. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2009;14:e538-e546.
  19. Biaggi L, Cappelloni I, Di Girolamo M, Maceri F, Vairo G. The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crystal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100:422- 31.
  20. Himmlova L, Dostíloví T, Kícovsk A, Konvicakov S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91:20-5.
  21. Miyamoto I, Tsuboi Y, Wada E, Suwa H, Iizuka T. Influence of cortical bone thickness and implant length on implant stability at the time of surgery-clinical, prospective, biomechanical, and imaging study. Bone. 2005;37:776-80.
  22. Iplik H, Akaok K. Comparative evaluation of the effect of diameter, length and number of implants supporting three-unit fixed partial prostheses on stress distribution in the bone. J Dent. 2002;30:41-6.
  23. Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S, Fiorellini JP, Fox CH, Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res.1991;25:889-902.
  24. Szmukler-Moncler S, Salama H, Reingewirtz Y, Dubruille JH. The timing of loading and effect of micromotion on bone-dental implant interface: a review of the experimental literature. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;43:192-203.
  25. Garber DA. The esthetic dental implant: letting restoration be the guide. J Am Dent Assoc. 1995;126:319-25.
  26. Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ. Dental implants in the diabetic patient: a retrospective study. Implant Dent. 1999;8:355-9.
  27. Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Sadler JP, McKay ML. Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;74:270-8.
  28. O'Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Measurements comparing the initial stability of five designs of dental implants: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000;2:85-92. 
  29. Steigenga JT, Al-Shammari KF, Nociti FH, Misch CE, Wang HL. Dental implant design and its relationship to long-term implant success. Implant Dent. 2003;12:306-17.
  30. dos Santos MV, Elias CN, Cavalcanti Lima JH. The effects of superficial roughness and design on the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2011;13:215-23.
  31. Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85:585-98.
  32. Li T, Kong L, Wang Y, Hu K, Song L, Liu B, et al. Selection of optimal dental implant diameter and length in type IV bone: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:1077-83.
  33. Petrie CS, Williams JL. Comparative evaluation of implant designs: influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest: A threedimensional finite-element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16:486-94.
  34. Sim CP, Lang NP. Factors influencing resonance frequency analysis assessed by Osstell mentor during implant tissue integration: I. Instrument positioning, bone structure, implant length. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:598-604.
  35. Bullis G, Shah S. Implant Surface Treatments: A Literature Review. Inclusive Magazine 2018;5.
  36. Kim DG, Shin MJ, Kim KH, Hanawa T. Surface treatments of titanium in aqueous solutions containing calcium and phosphate ions. Biomed Mater Eng. 1999;9:89-96.
  37. Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G. Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: a 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19: 247- 59.
  38. Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics-E-Book. St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2014.
  39. Renvert S, Roo JansÑker A, Claffey N. Nonsurgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and periimplantitis: a literature review. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35:305-15.
  40. Lang NP, Wilson TG, Corbet EF. Biological complications with dental implants: their prevention, diagnosis and treatment Note. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11:146-55.
Alexandria Dental Journal
Volume 43, Issue 3
December 2018
Pages 41-47

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics