97.4% success rates of tapered implants in the maxilla

Retrospective clinical study of new tapered design implants(TSIV) in maxillary posterior areas

By: Moon-Jung Jang, Pil-Young Yun, Young-Kyun Kim


Purpose

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of new tapered design implants installed in maxillary posterior areas.


Materials & Methods

From Jun 2011 through October 2012, 17 patients (14 men, 3 women) treated with tapered implants (Osstem TS IV) were considered. Thirty-eight implants (6 premolar and 32 molar) were placed in maxillary posterior areas. Implant stability and crestal bone loss were measured.


Fig 1. Osstem TS IV implant.   A: Diagram of Osstem TS IV implant; D: diameter, L: length.   B: Periapical view of Osstem TS IV implant.

Results

The implant stability quotient value was 59.9 at implant placement and 70.5 at the second surgery, indicating a significant difference. Mean crestal bone loss was 0.15 ± 0.15 mm (no sinus elevation group: 0.10 ± 0.13 mm; sinus elevation and simultaneous group: 0.16 ± 0.15 mm; sinus elevation and delayed group: 0.20 ± 0.19 mm). There was no significant difference according to sinus elevation or between the simultaneous group and delayed group. The success rate was 97.4%, and the survival rate was 97.4%.

 

Table 1. Number of Implant according to Implant Length and Diameter
Length (mm) Diameter
  4 4.5 5 Total
8.5     3 3
10 2 3 13 18
11.5 2   14 16
Total 4 3 30 37
Values are presented as number
Table 2. Initial Stability
Initial Stability (ISQ) Value
≤ 39 5
40-49 4
50-59 3
60-69 8
70-79 11
≥ 80 1
Total 32
Values are presented as number. ISQ: implant stability quotient
Table 3. Secondary Stability
Secondary Stability (ISQ) Value
≤ 59 1
60-69 5
70-79 7
≥ 80 1
Total 14
Values are presented as number. ISQ: implant stability quotient
Table 4. Crestal bone loss according to surgical procedure
Surgical Procedure Value
No sinus elevation 7(0.10 ± 0.13)*
Sinus elevation 28 (0.17 ± 0.16)*
Values are presented as number or mean  standard deviation (mm). *No statistically significant difference by surgical procedure (p=0.196)
Table 5. Crestal bone loss according to timing of implant placement
Timing of implant placement Value
Sinus elevation + Immediate 22 (0.16 ± 0.15)*
Sinus elevation + Delayed 6 (0.2 ± 0.2)*
Values are presented as number of mean ± standard deviation (mm)
*No statistically significant difference by timing of implant placement (p=0.690)

Conclusion

New tapered design implants should be applied to maxillary posterior areas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *