The effects of dental implant macrodesign on the success of prosthetic replacement

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Currently dental implantation is widely used in the areas of denture defects during the orthopedic rehabilitation of the patients. The clinical success of the implantation-related prosthetic replacement depends on multiple factors, including the macrodesign of the implant (the specific features of its structure: the shape, the characteristics and the number of thread turns). However, there are not so many comparative clinical trials exploring the effects of the main characteristics of the implant on the success of prosthetic procedures. For the practical dentist, the problem of selecting the implant system remains topical, which is why the proposed review is focused on the effects of the dental implant macrodesign on the success of implantation. The search of publications was arranged in the PubMed and eLibrary search engines using the “dental implant”, “dental implant macro-design”, “number of dental implant turns” and “implant thread characteristics” search enquiries with focusing on the research works evaluating the effects of the main characteristics of the implant in terms of primary stability and osteointegration. Various geometric parameters of the implant were analyzed, such as the shape, the length, the diameter and the thread characteristics, with further evaluating their significance for optimal tension distribution, as well as the effects on bone remodeling during the process of osteointegration. The successful implantation is being achieved by synergetic combination of numerous factors. The majority of investigators adhere to the opinion that implants shall be selected individually for each specific case with taking into consideration the local and general factors. However, the characteristics of the implant thread and the number of its thread turns improve the primary stability and represent a prerequisite for successful osteointegration. The choice of implant thread construction plays an important role for a treatment result. It was shown that the macrodesign of the implant, specifically its shape (cone), its length and diameter, higher thread width and depth, lesser thread pitch and higher numbers of thread turns influence the primary stability. Specifically these characteristics, according to our opinion, assure the success of dental implantation.

Full Text

INTRODUCTION

Dental implantation is being successfully used in dentistry for orthopedic rehabilitation of the patients with dental arch defects. The topicality of using the implants is resulting from high occurrence rates of partial or complete absence of teeth along with the patients’ need for effective restoration of the dental arch integrity [1, 2]. According to the World Health Organization data, complete absence of teeth can be found in 15% of adult patients, while the prevalence of patients with their partial absence is approximately 75%[3]. In cases of complete absence of teeth, the problem of rational prosthetic replacement is especially topical, for the majority of patients (up to 56%) do not wear the manufactured dental prostheses because of their unsatisfactory stabilization [4]. The benefits of dental implants in dentistry practice include high reliability, long service life, multi-functionality and, which is important, psychological comfort of the patient [5, 6].

Currently, reviewing and comparing the characteristics of dental implants, according to our opinion, is quite difficult for the reason of marketing and advertising campaigns from the manufacturers, for practically all the systems promise high-level osteointegration outcomes [7, 8]. In the real-time practice of the dentist, the choice of the implant system depends on multiple factors, including the costs, the accessibility of training and the reputation of the brand. However, the issues of the best macrodesign parameters (number of thread turns and thread characteristics) taking into consideration the individual characteristics of the patients, as of today, remain topical in modern literature.

MACRODESIGN OF THE DENTAL IMPLANT: CLINICAL SUCCESS OF IMPLANTATIONRELATED PROSTHETIC REPLACEMENT

We have reviewed modern literature sources, which are focused on the dental implant macrodesign affecting the success of prosthetic replacement with further justification of the choice of implant.

Methodology of searching the sources

The literature review was carried out based on searching the scientific literature, related to the research topic, in the PubMed and eLibrary systems. The search of publications was performed using the following search queries: “dental implant”, “dental implant macro-design”, “number of dental implant turns” and “implant thread characteristics”.

After analyzing the obtained data, certain patterns and trends were found in the results, based on which, conclusions were made on the effects of dental implant macrodesign, including its shape, the number of thread turns and the thread characteristics, in terms of achieving the successful prosthetic replacement outcome.

Implant survival

Dental implants are the constructions that are installed into the bone tissue of the jaws for fixating the prostheses for the purpose of orthopedic rehabilitation of dentistry patients [9]. The macrodesign of the dental implant means the geometry of the implant (shape, length and diameter) and the thread geometry (pitch, shape and depth) [8, 10].

According to the opinion from many investigators, the most important criteria for the success of implant functioning is its survival [7–10]. Thus, during the research conducted by the American scientists headed by S.Jain [10] in the State of Indiana in 2021–2022, 91.4% of early survival was shown (in 128patients undergoing a single implantation procedure, after the intervention, 117 implants have survived). The success of implantation was favored by the age of the patients— under 60 years old (odds ratio, OR, 2.54), immediate implantation (OR 3.74) and the implant length being less than 10 mm (OR 3.97). From 2006until 2017, early survival of the implants was also studied by the Chinese researchers: the survival rate value was 96.15% (1078cases were enlisted with a total of 2053implants)[11]. The long-term survival of dental implants (for 20years) was studied by J.R.Kupka et al. [12]: the authors have published five retrospective research works with a survival rate of 88% (95%CI78–94) and with emphasizing the necessity of long-term follow-up after the implantation. In the Seoul National University, a research was carried out on evaluating the long-term implant survival during the period of 10 — 15 years [13]: the research included 86patients and 247 implants, the total rate was 92.5%, 17 implants were extracted due to implant fracture (4.0%), peri-implantitis (2.4%) and screw fracture (0.4%).

B.R.Chrcanovic et al. [14] have structurized the main factors, which affect the implant survival:

  • factors related to the selection of patients (nicotine dependence, bruxism, diabetes, alcoholism);
  • factors related to the installation of the implant (primary stability, bone density, implant positioning at the alveolar process);
  • factors related to the implant system (surface type, length, diameter, construction);
  • factors related to the prosthetic replacement;
  • biological factors (the assessment of periodontal tissues, the level of dental hygiene etc.).

OSTEOINTEGRATION AND PRIMARY STABILITY OF DENTAL IMPLANTS

One of the important criteria for implant survival is the osteointegration process. Osteointegrationis the direct attachment of the bone tissue to the implant surface without introducing the connective tissue layer [15]. For successful attachment of blood components with forming the fibrin “bridges” for the purpose of osteogenic cell proliferation and developing the contact osteogenesis, the presence of well-developed topography of the intraosseous part of implant is necessary [16]. The long-term successful integration is affected by the primary stability of dental implants, which is determined by the size and the type of the direct first contact between the implant and the prepared bone tissue bed [17]. The measurements of the stability by means of the resonance frequency analysis (RFA) are being carried out using the measuring equipment (for example, Osstell), with the result provided, which lies within a range from 1 to 100ISQ units (implant stability coefficient) [18].

The primary stability is mainly affected by such parameters as bone density, thickness of the cortical bone and the height of the alveolar process [19]. Within this context, various implant macrodesigns were developed. With this, according to the opinion by S.Kreve et al. [20], the dental implant thread directly affects the primary stability and the osteointegration, for which, it is necessary to evaluate the isolated characteristics, such as the design-related ones, including the shape, the length and the diameter of the implant, as well as the thread pitch, the thread width and the implant face angle. F.Javed et al. [21], upon evaluating the primary (mechanical) stability of the implant by analyzing the data base for the period of 1983–2013, have emphasized the importance of achieving primary stability for successful implant integration, pointing out that the primary stability of the implant is significantly affected by the quality and the quantity of the bone, by the implant geometry and by the surgical technique.

Implant body shape

The implant body shape (cylindrical, conical, mixed-type) also influences the primary stability and osteointegration (Fig. 1) [22, 23].

 

Fig. 1. Design of dental implants. Property of Conexão Sistemas e Prótese Company, Brazil, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike-3.0 license [23].

 

Currently, more and more popular are the conical implants, considering the simplicity of their clinical use, the shortened sequence of preparing the bone tissue and the lesser healing period. N.Lozano-Carrascal et al. [24], in particular, have defined that conical dental implants achieve higher primary stability (as measured using the ISQ) and higher torque values. The thing is that conical implants provide compressing lateral effects to the cortical bone, which can be the main reason for their increased primary stability. D.Heimes et al. [25] report that, among the hybrid forms, the increased primary stability is demonstrated by apical-conical implants.

Various forms of the integrated implant is also justified by the density of the bone tissue: for example, cylindric types are being installed into the dense bone (type D1–D2), the cone-shapedones — into the D3–D4 type bone, while the root-shaped — into the D2–D4 type bone [26].

Implant length

The choice of such a parameter as the implant length is often defined by the extent of bone tissue loss and by the installation area (Fig. 2) [27]. For example, long dental implants are often used with high density and height of the bone tissue [28], the short ones are recommended for use in the areas, where its is necessary to decrease the probability of damaging the adjacent structures, for example, the maxillary sinuses.

 

Fig. 2. Implant Length (l): а — standard (13 mm) and short (7 mm) cylindrical and conical implants (4 mm diameter); b — implants with abutments. The images are distributed under to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (CC-BY 4.0) [27].

 

Some research works describe that the primary stability significantly increases with the increase of the implant length [29], while the other state that various lengths do not define the difference in the primary stability parameters [25]. The conducted meta-analysis has demonstrated that short (≤6 mm) and longer (≥8.5mm) implants do not show significant differences in terms of survival rates, which leaves the discussion open for further research [30]. D.Heimes et al. [25], on the contrary, report that higher implant length provides better primary stability, however, the linear dependence ends at 12 mm [25].

Implant diameter

The diameter of the implant also matters. There are implants of small and large diameter. The research works show that larger diameter implant provides better primary stability, which is why the diameter is considered the most important parameter for distributing the tension and the construction load [31]. With this, the survival rates of the implants with decreased diameter comparing to usual diameter (Straumann dental implants with a SLActive surface) during the comparative research by J.Herrmann et al. [32] were 97.4% and 98.5%, respectively. The RFA analysis has shown statistically significant lower values for implants with decreased diameter, while the satisfaction of the patients did not show significant difference. Thus, the Straumann dental implants with decreased diameter were demonstrating much lesser values than the ones in the usual diameter implants, also showing excellent values of survival rates and resonance frequency.

A research by G.E.Romanos et al. [33] has shown that narrow diameter implants (NDI; diameter ≤3.5 mm) can be installed even in the areas with limited space and bone volume. NDI represent an alternative option to standard diameter implants (SDI), which can be used to expand the range of indications for prosthetic replacement. The 5-year values of survival rate and successful implantation for NDI (97.3%) were slightly higher than the ones of the SDI (94.9%) [33]. A research conducted among 186 patients in Saudi Arabia [34], has provided other results: the implants with diameter of 5 mm had the highest values of early survival rate (98.72%), while the implants with a diameter of 3.5 mm have shown the rates of 94.57%.

Implant thread

The construction of the implant thread is a significant decisive factor for initial primary and further secondary stability [35].

The following characteristics can be described in terms of the implant macro-construction: thread pitch; width and depth of thread; thread slope angle; apical surface angle (Fig. 3) [25].

 

Fig. 3. Main characteristics of the implant thread (apical surface angle — the angle between the thread surface and the horizontal to the longitudinal axis of the implant; pitch— the distance from the thread center to the next thread turn along the longitudinal axis of the implant, or the length of the implant, divided by the number of thread turns; thread slope angle — the angle between the thread spiral and the horizontal to the longitudinal axis of the implant; thread width — the distance between the most coronal and the most apical part of the said thread; thread depth — the distance between the external contour of the thread and the implant base body) [25]. The images are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 

The thread pitch of the implant is the parameter which is measured from the center of one thread to the next thread along the longitudinal axis of the implant [31]. A dental implant with lesser pitch is characterized by larger number of threads, which increases the surface of the implant and promotes to rational distribution of the load. However, this question is controversial, for the research work by L.C.Carmo Filho et al. [36] did not detect any statistically significant difference between the thread pitch of 0.6 mm, 1.0 mm and 1.5 mm in terms of implant stability. The ideal one, on the opinion of the authors, is the 0.8 mm pitch for V-shaped thread.

The width of the implant thread represents the distance between the most coronal and the most apical part of thread. The width largely determines the direction of the implant moving during its installation. According to the results of the research works, the optimal thread width in terms of its biomechanical characteristics can be considered the value of 0.19–0.23 mm [25].

The width of the thread is closely related to such aparameter as the thread depth, i.e. the distance between external contour of the thread and the implant base body. The thread depth is defined as the distance, by which the threads protrude from the implant base[37]. Larger thread depth is beneficial because of increasing the functional surface of the implant, which increases primary stability, however, it can decrease the precision of installation. Thus, implants with larger thread depth can increase primary stability without decreasing the mechanical strength [24]. According to the research by M.Menini et al. [38], the most optimal thread depth is 0.34–0.5 mm. However, despite the data provided, additional trials are necessary, both invivo and clinical, to support these observations.

The thread slope angle defines the movement of the implant upon its installation: the bigger is the slope, the lesser number of turns is required for the implant to be installed at its whole length. However, larger slope angle of the thread helix can result in longitudinal rotation of the implant under axial load. The slope angle directly depends on the thread shape: thus, the V-shaped thread is characterized by an optimal frontal angle of 30о, while the reverse counter-force thread has an angle of 15о. К.Sadr et al. [39] have defined that the most favorable for successful osteointegration are the implants with areverse thread with angles of 20о and 30о, as well as with the trapezoid thread with an angle of 35о.

However, the choice of thread characteristics is often defined by the individual characteristics of the patient, predominantly depending on the type of the bone tissue. For example, for the D1–D2 type bone tissue, the recommended implants are the ones with cylindrical thread profile, as well as the ones with V-shaped thread with small thread pitch and depth. For the bone tissue of D3–D4 type, the implants recommended for installation are the ones with V-shaped thread and with increased pitch and depth. This is why it is not possible to definitely state the benefits of one or another thread characteristic [40].

Besides the thread properties, the important, though insufficiently studied in modern literature, characteristic is the number of thread turns of the dental implant, for the small number of them cannot create the necessary surface area, which, upon loading, can negatively affect the functioning of the construction. In particular, during the research conducted by D.Kaplun et al. [41], it was found that 10 thread turns in a MegaGen Implant dental implant comparing to 5 thread turns of the Vitaplant VPKS device provides larger surface area, which increases the success rates regarding the primary stability and further osteointegration. In the research by A.Falco etal. [42], implants with larger and self-tapping threads have demonstrated significantly lower values of micro-mobility (p<0.05) comparing to the implants with small threads. The authors report that the implant geometry and the bone density are the main factors affecting the degree of primary stability of the prosthetic device, also reporting that the large thread constructions are preferable for low bone density.

In general, the implants shall be selected individually for each case with taking into consideration the local and general factors. It is important to evaluate the biological status of the patient and to examine various mechanical features in general for the specific clinical situation. The research works from many authors prove that the characteristics of the implant macro-construction improve primary stability and represent a pre-requisite for successful osteointegration. Upon analyzing the obtained data, a conclusion can be made that the parameters of the dental implant thread (thread pitch, width and depth, as well as the slope angle) along with the number of thread turns directly affect the surface of the implant contacting the bone tissue, hence, affecting the primary stability and further successful osteointegration of the implants, which defines the efficiency of orthopaedic therapy.

CONCLUSION

Based on the presented research data from the literature sources, a conclusion can be made that the macrodesign of the dental implant affects the success of prosthetic replacement. The correct choice of the implant is defined by the conical shape, by larger diameter and length (up to 12 mm), as well as by larger width and depth of the thread, by lesser thread pitch and by higher number of thread turns, which provides primary stability to the construction (resulting from larger area of contact between the dental implant and the surrounding bone). These specific characteristics, according to our opinion, assure the success of dental implantation.

In cases of low bone density, the implants with lesser thread pitch are useful due to enlarged area of the implant contacting the bone. The configuration of the micro-thread located at the neck of the implant can improve the formation of the bone and the distribution of tension for implants installed into the spongeous bone in cases of immediate loading.

Further trials are required for studying the interactions of the organism tissues with the dental implants, as well as for analyzing the effects of various parameters on the stimulation of bone tissue formation.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Funding source. This study was not supported by any external sources of funding.

Competing interests. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contribution. A.N.Nikolaenko, M.A.Postnikov, A.P.Borisov— processing and discussion of the results of the study, writing the text of the article; N.V.Popov, A.A.Kiiko— search and analytical work, discussion of the results of the study, writing the text of the article. All authors made a substantial contribution to the conception of the work, acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data for the work, drafting and revising the work, final approval of the version to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

×

About the authors

Andrey N. Nikolaenko

Samara State Medical University

Email: nikolaenko.83@inbox.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3411-4172
SPIN-code: 2651-4331

MD, PhD, Associate Professor

Russian Federation, Samara

Mikhail A. Postnikov

Samara State Medical University

Email: m.a.postnikov@samsmu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2232-8870
SPIN-code: 6696-8870

MD, PhD, Professor

Russian Federation, Samara

Nikolay V. Popov

Samara State Medical University

Email: n.v.popov@samsmu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4454-984X
SPIN-code: 3349-4901

MD, PhD, Associate Professor

Russian Federation, Samara

Alexander P. Borisov

Samara State Medical University

Email: dr_borisov71@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0008-9562-6394
SPIN-code: 8516-6174

MD, PhD, Associate Professor

Russian Federation, Samara

Anastasia A. Kiiko

Samara State Medical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: Pavlova_164@mail.ru
SPIN-code: 1102-1824
Russian Federation, Samara

References

  1. Zhong S, Chen M, Gao R, Shu C. Dental implant restoration for dentition defects improves clinical efficacy, masticatory function and patient comfort. Am J Transl Res. 2022;14(9):6399–6406.
  2. Peng K, Zhou Y, Dai Y, et al. The effect of denture restoration and dental implant restoration in the treatment of dentition defect: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10(3):3267–3276. doi: 10.21037/apm-21-421
  3. Meade MJ, Dreyer CW. Tooth agenesis: An overview of diagnosis, aetiology and management. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2023;59:209–218. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2023.07.001
  4. Sailer I, Karasan D, Todorovic A, et al. Prosthetic failures in dental implant therapy. Periodontol 2000. 2022;88(1):130–144. doi: 10.1111/prd.12416
  5. Никитина Л.И., Громова А.С. Стоматологическая реабилитация больных с полной (вторичной) адентией с использованием дентальных имплантатов // Acta Medica Eurasica. 2022. № 3. С. 29–35. [Nikitina LI, Gromova AS. Dental rehabilitation of patients with complete (secondary) adentia using dental implants. Acta Medica Eurasica. 2022;(3):29–35]. EDN: AOVHYG doi: 10.47026/2413-4864-2022-3-29-35
  6. Duong HY, Roccuzzo A, Stähli А, et al. Oral health‐related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant‐supported dental prostheses. Periodontol 2000. 2022;88(1):201–237. doi: 10.1111/prd.12419
  7. Inchingolo AM, Malcangi G, Ferrante L, et al. Surface coatings of dental implants: A review. J Funct Biomater. 2023;14(5):287. doi: 10.3390/jfb14050287
  8. Hao CP, Cao NJ, Zhu YH, Wang W. The osseointegration and stability of dental implants with different surface treatments in animal models: A network meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):13849. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-93307-4
  9. Chatzopoulos GS, Wolff LF. Survival rates and factors affecting the outcome following immediate and delayed implant placement: A retrospective study. J Clin Med. 2022;11(15):4598. doi: 10.3390/jcm11154598
  10. Jain S, Hemavardhini A, Ranjan M, et al. Evaluation of survival rates of dental implants and the risk factors: A retrospective follow-up study. Cureus. 2024;16(3):e55360. doi: 10.7759/cureus.55360
  11. Yang Y, Hu H, Zeng M, et al. The survival rates and risk factors of implants in the early stage: A retrospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):293. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01651-8
  12. Kupka JR, König J, Al-Nawas B, et al. How far can we go? A 20-year meta-analysis of dental implant survival rates. Clin Oral Invest. 2024;28(10):541. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05929-3
  13. Ryoo KS, Kim PJ, Kim S, et al. A retrospective study of the long-term survival of RESTORE dental implants with resorbable blast media surface. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2023;53(6):444–452. doi: 10.5051/jpis.2203340167
  14. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Reasons for failures of oral implants. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(6):443–476. doi: 10.1111/joor.12157
  15. Walter N, Stich T, Docheva D, et al. Evolution of implants and advancements for osseointegration: A narrative review. Injury. 2022;53(3):S69–S73. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2022.05.057
  16. Хаитов А.К., Стрельников Е.В., Королев А.А. Механизмы и факторы, влияющие на остеоинтеграцию дентальных имплантатов (обзор литературы) // Тверской медицинский журнал. 2022. № 5. С. 53–55. [Khaitov AK, Strelnikov EV, Korolev AA. Mechanisms and factors, affecting the osseointegration of dental implants (literature review). Tverskoi meditsinskii zhurnal. 2022;(5):53–55]. EDN: EHDCVM
  17. Olmedo-Gaya MV, Romero-Olid MN, Ocaña-Peinado FM. Influence of different surgical techniques on primary implant stability in the posterior maxilla: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(7):3499–3508. doi: 10.1007/s00784-023-04962-y
  18. Султанов А.А., Первов Ю.Ю., Яценко А.К. Физико-химические свойства имплантатов и их взаимодействие с окружающими тканями и средами полости рта (обзор литературы) // Вятский медицинский вестник. 2019. № 2. С. 80–86. [Sultanov AA, Pervov Yu, Yatsenko AK. Physical and chemical properties of implants, their interaction with surrounding tissues and environments of the oral cavity (literature review). Medical newsletter of Vyatka. 2019;(2):80–86]. EDN: WRSCOO
  19. Ivanova V, Chenchev I, Zlatev S, Mijiritsky E. Correlation between primary, secondary stability, bone density, percentage of vital bone formation and implant size. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(13):6994. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18136994
  20. Kreve S, Ferreira I, da Costa Valente ML, dos Reis AC. Relationship between dental implant macro-design and osseointegration: A systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024;28(1):1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10006-022-01116-4
  21. Javed F, Ahmed HB, Crespi R, Romanos GE. Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: Factors of influence and evaluation. Interv Med Appl Sci. 2013;5(4):162–167. doi: 10.1556/IMAS.5.2013.4.3
  22. Saha S, Roy S. Metallic dental implants wear mechanisms, materials, and manufacturing processes: A literature review. Materials (Basel). 2023;16(1):161. doi: 10.3390/ma16010161
  23. Elias CN. Factors affecting the success of dental implants. In book: Implant dentistry: A rapidly evolving practice. ResearchGate; 2011. doi: 10.5772/18746
  24. Lozano-Carrascal N, Salomó-Coll O, Gilabert-Cerdà M. Effect of implant macro-design on primary stability: A prospective clinical study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016;21(2):e214–e221. doi: 10.4317/medoral.21024
  25. Heimes D, Becker P, Pabst A, et al. How does dental implant macrogeometry affect primary implant stability? A narrative review. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s40729-023-00485-z
  26. Студеникин Р.В., Сущенко А.В., Мамедо А.А. Влияние геометрических параметров дентальных имплантатов на вторичную стабильность и процесс остеоинтеграции в зависимости от типа кости // Эндодонтия Today. 2023. Т. 21, № 2. С. 148–153. [Studenikin RV, Sushchenko AV, Mamedo AA. Influence of geometrical parameters of dental implants on secondary stability and osseointegration process depending on the type of bone. Endodontics Today. 2023;21(2):148–153]. EDN: KJICRI doi: 10.36377/1683-2981-2023-21-2-148-153
  27. Gehrke SA, Frugis VL, Shibli JA, et al. Influence of implant design (cylindrical and conical) in the load transfer surrounding long (13 mm) and short (7 mm) length implants: A photoelastic analysis. Оpen Dent J. 2016:10:522–530. doi: 10.2174/1874210601610010522
  28. Huang YuC, Huang YeC, Ding SJ. Primary stability of implant placement and loading related to dental implant materials and designs: A literature review. J Dent Sci. 2023;18(4):1467–1476. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2023.06.010
  29. Aragoneses JM, Aragoneses J, Brugal VA, et al. Relationship between implant length and implant stability of single-implant restorations: A 12-month follow-up clinical study. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020; 56(6):263. doi: 10.3390/medicina56060263
  30. Vazouras K, de Souza AB, Gholami H, et al. Effect of time in function on the predictability of short dental implants (≤6 mm): A meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2020;47(3):403–415. doi: 10.1111/joor.12925
  31. Cahyaningtyas NA, Miranda A, Metta P, Bawono CA. Dental implant macrodesign features in the past 10 years: A systematic review. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2023;27(2):131–139. doi: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_676_21
  32. Herrmann J, Hentschel A, Glauche I, et al. Implant survival and patient satisfaction of reduced diameter implants made from a titanium-zirconium alloy: A retrospective cohort study with 550 implants in 311 patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(12):1940–1944. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2016. 09.007
  33. Romanos GE, Schesni A, Nentwig GH, et al. Impact of implant diameter on success and survival of dental implants: An observational cohort study. Prosthesis. 2023;5(3):888–897. doi: 10.3390/prosthesis5030062
  34. Mously EA. Impact of implant diameter on the early survival rate of dental implants in the Saudi population: A one-year retrospective study. Cureus. 2023;15(4):e37765. doi: 10.7759/cureus.37765
  35. Valente F, Scarano A, Murmura G, et al. Collagen fibres orientation in the bone matrix around dental implants: Does the implant’s thread design play a role? Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(15):7860. doi: 10.3390/ijms22157860
  36. Carmo Filho LC, Faot F, Madruga MM, et al. Effect of implant macrogeometry on peri-implant healing outcomes: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(2):567–575. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2463-5
  37. Moulyashree M, Mahantesha S. Configurations of implant threads: A review. Sch J Dent Sci. 2023;10(5):86–90. doi: 10.36347/sjds.2023.v10i05.002
  38. Menini M, Bagnasco F, Calimodio I, et al. Influence of implant thread morphology on primary stability: A prospective clinical study. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:6974050. doi: 10.1155/2020/6974050
  39. Sadr K, Pakdel SM. A 3-D finite element analysis of the effect of dental implant thread angle on stress distribution in the surrounding bone. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2022;16(1):53–61. doi: 10.34172/joddd.2022.009
  40. Наумович С.А., Головко А.И. Анализ факторов, влияющих на процесс остеоинтеграции дентальных имплантатов при планировании ортопедического лечения // Современная стоматология. 2019. № 3. С. 44–50. [Naumovich SA, Golovko AI. Analysis of factors affecting the process of osseointegration of dental implants when planning orthopedic treatment. Sovremennaia stomatologiia. 2019;(3):44–50]. EDN: RKKNTY
  41. Kaplun D, Avetikov D, Lokes К, Ivanytska O. Comparative characteristics of the properties of dental implants depending on the design, shape and surface in the experiment. Stomatologija.2023;25(1):21–25.
  42. Falco A, Berardini M, Trisi P. Correlation between implant geometry, implant surface, insertion torque, and primary stability: In vitro biomechanical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(4):824–830. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6285

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Design of dental implants. Illustration is owned by Conexão Sistemas e Prótese Company, Brazil, distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike-3.0 license [23].

Download (1MB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig.2. Implant Length (l): а — standard (13 mm) and short (7 mm) cylindrical and conical implants (4 mm diameter); b — implants with abutments. The images are distributed under to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (CC-BY 4.0) [27].

Download (1MB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig.3. Main characteristics of the implant thread (apical surface angle — the angle between the thread surface and the horizontal to the longitudinal axis of the implant; pitch— the distance from the thread center to the next thread turn along the longitudinal axis of the implant, or the length of the implant, divided by the number of thread turns; thread slope angle — the angle between the thread spiral and the horizontal to the longitudinal axis of the implant; thread width — the distance between the most coronal and the most apical part of the said thread; thread depth — the distance between the external contour of the thread and the implant base body) [25]. The images are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Download (1MB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2024 Eco-Vector

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 38032 от 11 ноября 2009 года.