Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 9, 2025
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Does implantoplasty affect the failure strength of narrow and regular diameter implants? A laboratory study
Kristina Bertl1,2, Flemming Isidor3, Per Vult von Steyern4
1Department of Periocdontology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Malmö, Sweden.
Objective:
To assess whether the impact of implantoplasty (IP) on the maximum implant failure strength depends on implant type/design, diameter, or material.
Methods:
Fourteen implants each of different type/design [bone (BL) and tissue level (TL)], diameter [narrow (3.3 mm) and regular (4.1 mm)], and material [titanium grade IV (Ti) and titanium-zirconium alloy (TiZr)] of one company were used. Half of the implants were subjected to IP in a computerized torn. All implants were subjected to dynamic loading prior to loading until failure to simulate regular mastication. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed with maximum implant failure strength as dependent variable and IP, implant type/design, diameter, and material as predictors.
Results:
Implants subjected to IP and TL implants showed statistically significant reduced implant failure strength irrespective of the diameter compared with implants without IP and BL implants, respectively. Implant material had a significant impact for TL implants and for regular diameter implants, with TiZr being stronger than Ti. During dynamic loading, 1 narrow Ti TL implant without IP, 4 narrow Ti TL implants subjected to IP, and 1 narrow TiZr TL implant subjected to IP were fractured.
Conclusion:
IP significantly reduced the maximum implant failure strength, irrespective implant type/design, diameter, or material, but the maximum implant failure strength of regular diameter implants and of narrow BL implants remained high.
Clinical Relevance:
IP seems to have no clinically relevant impact on the majority of cases, except from those of single narrow Ti TL implants, which may have an increased risk for mechanical complications. This should be considered for peri-implantitis treatment planning (e.g., communication of potential complications to the patient), but also in the planning of implant installation (e.g., choosing TiZr instead of Ti for narrow implants).
