Objectives: The present study compared two implants with different macrogeometries placed in healed alveolar sites, evaluating the insertion torque (ITV) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values at three different periods. Methods: Seventy patients with a total of 100 dental implants were allocated into two groups (n = 50 per group): DuoCone implants (DC group) that included 28 implants in the maxilla and 22 in the mandible, and Maestro implants (MAE group) that included 26 in the maxilla and 24 in the mandible. The ITV was measured during the implant placement, and the ISQ values were measured immediately at implant placement (baseline) and after 30 and 45 days. Results: The mean and standard deviations of the ITV were statistically significant (p < 0.0001), 56.4 ± 6.41 Ncm for the DC group and 29.3 ± 9.65 Ncm for the MAE group. In the DC group, the ISQs ranged between 61.1 ± 3.78 and 69.8 ± 3.86, while the MAE group presented similar values compared with the other group, ranging between 61.9 ± 3.92 and 72.1 ± 2.37. Conclusions: The value of implant insertion torque did not influence the ISQ values measured immediately after implant placement. However, the ITV influenced the ISQ values measured in the two initial periods of osseointegration, with implants installed with lower torques presenting higher ISQ values.

This study aims to evaluate the effects of implant macrogeometry on the early period of the osseointegration process, comparing four different implant models through biomechanical and histological analysis after implantation in rabbit tibiae. Twenty New Zealand rabbits were used, evaluated at two different times (21 and 28 days) after installation of the implant. Eighty implants with different macrogeometries were used, forming four groups (n = 20 per group): cylindrical implants Ø4.1 mm and 8 mm in length (STRc group); cylindrical-conical implants Ø4.1 mm and 8 mm in length (STRt group); tapered implants Ø4.3 mm and 8 mm in length (NOBt group); and tapered implants with healing chambers Ø4.0 mm and 8 mm in length (MAEt group). Ten samples from each group were analyzed at each proposed time. The initial implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured by resonance frequency analysis, both at the time of installation and at the time of sacrifice. In the histological sections, the percentage of bone-implant contact (BIC%), newly formed bone, osteoid matrix, and medullary spaces were measured in the pre-determined cortical and medullary bone portion for each sample. The three tapered implant groups (STRt, NOBt, and MAEt) showed higher values for the analyzed parameters in the early osseointegration period, in comparison with the cylindrical implant group (STRc). In all parameters, the three tapered groups showed no difference (p > 0.05); however, all three tapered groups presented significant differences, when compared to the cylindrical group (p < 0.05). No correlation was detected between the parameters analyzed. Within the limitations of the present study, in all parameters analyzed, the tapered implants demonstrated greater results when compared to the cylindrical implants.

UNASSIGNED: The ideal installation technique or implant macrogeometry for obtaining an adequate osseointegration in low-density bone tissue follows a challenge in the implantology.
UNASSIGNED: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the behavior of three osteotomy techniques and two implant macrogeometries in two low-density polyurethane blocks. The insertion torque (IT), initial stability, pullout resistance, and weight of the residual bone material deposited on the implants were assessed.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 120 implants with two different macrogeometries were used. They were divided into six groups according to the implant macrogeometry and the drilling technique performed (n = 20 implants per group). The implants were installed in polyurethane blocks with pounds per cubic foot (PCF) 10 and PCF 20 densities. The IT, initial stability, pullout resistance, and weight residual bone were measured.
UNASSIGNED: Differences were found in the values referring to the macrogeometry of the implants and the type of osteotomy performed. In all groups, the initial stability of the PCF 10 blocks was quite low. The undersized osteotomies significantly increased the values measured in all tests in the PCF 20 density blocks.
UNASSIGNED: In conclusion, even when a modified (undersized) osteotomy technique is used, implants inserted in low-quality bone (type IV) can present problems for osseointegration due their low initial stability and bone resistance. However, the modification in the implant macrogeometry (with healing chambers) presented more quantity of bone on the surface after the pullout test.

The aim of this experimental animal study was to assess guided bone regeneration (GBR) and implant stability (ISQ) around two dental implants with different macrogeometries. Forty eight dental implants were placed within six Beagle dogs. The implants were divided into two groups (n = 24 per group): G1 group implants presented semi-conical macrogeometry, a low apical self-tapping portion, and an external hexagonal connection (whereby the cervical portion was bigger than the implant body). G2 group implants presented parallel walls macrogeometry, a strong apical self-tapping portion, and an external hexagonal connection (with the cervical portion parallel to the implant body). Buccal (mouth-related) defects of 2 mm (c2 condition) and 5 mm (c3 condition) were created. For the control condition with no defect (c1), implants were installed at crestal bone level. Eight implants in each group were installed under each condition. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured immediately after implant placement, and on the day of sacrifice (3 months after the implant placement). Histological and histomorphometric procedures and analysis were performed to assess all samples, measuring crestal bone loss (CBL) and bone-to-implant contact (BIC). The data obtained were compared with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. The ISQ results showed a similar evolution between the groups at the two evaluation times, although higher values were found in the G1 group under all conditions. Within the limitations of this animal study, it may be concluded that implant macrogeometry is an important factor influencing guided bone regeneration in buccal defects. Group G1 showed better buccal bone regeneration (CBL) and BIC % at 3 months follow up, also parallel collar design can stimulate bone regeneration more than divergent collar design implants. The apical portion of the implant, with a stronger self-tapping feature, may provide better initial stability, even in the presence of a bone defect in the buccal area.