Related Experiment Videos
On cutting torque measurements during implant placement: a 3-year clinical prospective study
B Friberg1, L Sennerby, K Gröndahl
1Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service and Faculty of Odontology, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden.
Background:
Evaluation of jaw bone quality at implant placement is mainly based on preoperative radiographic assessments and subjective hand registrations during implant site preparation. An objective technique with cutting torque measurements has been introduced, presenting an objective bone quality or bone hardness value of individual implant sites.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate cutting torque measurements during implant placement and to compare these values in different regions in mandibles and maxillae. The objective was to identify implants at risk for failing at implant placement.
Material And Methods:
Cutting torque measurements were performed during placement of Mk II self-tapping implants (Brånemark System) in 105 patients, comprising 72 edentulous (40 maxillae) and 34 partially edentulous (22 maxillae) jaws. A total of 523 implants were inserted, of which 420 were of the Mk II design and of which 412 were subjected to cutting torque measurements. Statistical analyses were performed by comparing cutting torque values of maxillae and mandibles and of different jaw regions. Cutting torque values were also correlated with radiographically and clinically assessed bone quality scores. Patients were followed clinically for a minimum of 3 years.
Results:
A statistically significant difference in cutting torque values of maxillae and mandibles was seen, although not when comparing anterior and posterior regions within the same jaws or of different jaws. Significant correlations were found between values of cutting torque and bone quality. The majority of failures were seen in bone of medium to high density, whereas implants inserted in bone of poor density presented a better outcome, perhaps due to an adapted surgical protocol and an extended healing period. The overall implant survival rate at 3 years was 95%, and when analyzing different jaw categories, survival rates of 92.0% and 99.4% were seen for edentulous maxillae and mandibles, respectively. The corresponding figures for partially edentulous jaws were 95.4% and 97.6%.
Conclusion:
It was not possible to identify sites at risk for future implant losses or to determine a lower limit value of cutting torque in order to achieve successful implant integration.