Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 13, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Implant Bed Preparation and the Influence on Primary Implant Stability After Using 2
Stephan Christian Möhlhenrich1, Nicole Heussen2, Christina Loberg3
1Research Assistant, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Purpose:
Surgical techniques affect primary implant stability, which is required for osseointegration. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of full-guided surgery on the dimension of implant site in relation to primary stability.
Materials And Methods:
After implant site preparation in artificial bone by full-guided (FG) or non-guided (NG) workflows to create final diameters of 3.3, 4.1, and 4.8mm and depths of 8 or 12 mm, computed tomograms were obtained and the volume of the osteotomies was analyzed 3 dimensionally. After comparing implant insertions, the implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured by resonance frequency analysis (RFA).
Results:
Volume analysis of the implant site showed significant differences (P < .0001) between surgical procedures (FG vs NG) at a depth of 12 mm for all diameters (3.3 mm, 61.98 ± 5.84 vs 80.96 ± 9.65 mm(3); 4.1 mm, 107.45 ± 6.91 vs 132.07 ± 5.16 mm(3); 4.8 mm, 158.62 ± 10.21 vs 182.00 ± 6.25 mm(3)) and at a depth of 8 mm for diameters of 4.1 mm (71.76 ± 8.38 vs 83.64 ± 7.54 mm(3)) and 4.8 mm (103.84 ± 6.73 vs 120.55 ± 14.63 mm(3)). RFA showed significant differences for implants with a diameter of 4.8 mm and lengths of 12 mm (ISQ, 69.3 ± 4.09 for FG vs 65.05 ± 5.61 for NG; P = .0007) and 8 mm (64.5 ± 4.16 for FG vs 58.85 ± 6.72 for NG; P = .0107).
Conclusions:
The use of FG implant surgery decreases the bone volume removed during osteotomy preparation, which can lead to greater primary stability.
