Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 21, 2026
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
In vitro assessment of primary stability of Straumann® implant designs
Georgios E Romanos1, Gabriela Ciornei, Adina Jucan
1Professor of Clinical Dentistry, Divisions of Periodontology and General Dentistry, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA Professor, Department of Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, Dental School (Carolinum), University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany Clinical instructor, Divisions of Periodontology and General Dentistry, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA Resident, Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD), Division of General Dentistry, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA Professor and program director of AEGD, Division of General Dentistry, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA.
Background:
Primary implant stability (PS) is one of the main factors influencing implant survival rate. Several methods to determine the PS have been used, such as Periotest values (PVs) and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) with implant stability quotient (ISQ) values.
Purpose:
The aim of this study was to compare different implant designs in regard to PS assessed by Periotest and RFA in vitro.
Materials And Methods:
A total of 90 implants were placed in freshly slaughtered cow ribs. The implants (Straumann®, Institute Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland; length 10 mm, ø3.3 mm) had the following three designs: Bone Level (BL, 30 implants), Standard Plus (SP, 30 implants), and Tapered Effect (TE, 30 implants). Before implant placement, the investigator was calibrated for every design according to the manufacturer's instructions. An independent observer, blinded to the study, assessed the accuracy of placement. RFA based on the Osstell device and PVs were performed after abutment connection. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test were used for statistical evaluation.
Results:
All implants were mechanically stable. The mean PV for BL was -4.67(± 1.18), for SP, -6.07(± 0.94), and for TE, -6.57(± 0.57). The mean ISQ values were 75.02(± 3.65), 75.98(± 3.00), and 79.83(± 1.85), respectively. The one-way ANOVA showed significant difference among three implant designs in PV (p < .0001) and for the ISQ between BL/TE or SP/TE implants (p < .0001). In addition, the Tukey's (pair-wise comparison) test showed significant differences in PV and RFA between the BL/T (p < .0001).
Conclusion:
Within the limitations of this study, higher implant stability was found for tapered designed implants.
