Biomechanical evaluation of implants with different surfaces: analysis of stability coefficient and removal torque in rabbits

Descripción del Articulo

Objective: Evaluate the biomechanical behavior of three implant brands with different surfaces by comparing stability parameters during placement and removal. Materials and Methods: An experimental study was conducted with 8 rabbits, in which 21 implants from three different brands were placed: ML I...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Rodríguez, Arminda, Navarro, María Cristina, Ibañez, Juan Carlos, Grenón, Miriam Silvina
Formato: artículo
Fecha de Publicación:2025
Institución:Universidad de San Martín de Porres
Repositorio:Revistas - Universidad de San Martín de Porres
Lenguaje:español
OAI Identifier:oai:revistas.usmp.edu.pe:article/3137
Enlace del recurso:https://portalrevistas.aulavirtualusmp.pe/index.php/Rev-Kiru0/article/view/3137
Nivel de acceso:acceso abierto
Materia:Dental Implants; Denture Retenction; Torque.
Implantes Dentales; Estabilidad de Dentadura; Torque
id REVUSMP_7b80e70e3bef5740b47b2b1cb5a0f456
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usmp.edu.pe:article/3137
network_acronym_str REVUSMP
network_name_str Revistas - Universidad de San Martín de Porres
repository_id_str
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Biomechanical evaluation of implants with different surfaces: analysis of stability coefficient and removal torque in rabbits
Evaluación biomecánica de implantes con diferentes superficies: análisis de coeficiente de estabilidad y torque de remoción en conejos
title Biomechanical evaluation of implants with different surfaces: analysis of stability coefficient and removal torque in rabbits
spellingShingle Biomechanical evaluation of implants with different surfaces: analysis of stability coefficient and removal torque in rabbits
Rodríguez, Arminda
Dental Implants; Denture Retenction; Torque.
Implantes Dentales; Estabilidad de Dentadura; Torque
title_short Biomechanical evaluation of implants with different surfaces: analysis of stability coefficient and removal torque in rabbits
title_full Biomechanical evaluation of implants with different surfaces: analysis of stability coefficient and removal torque in rabbits
title_fullStr Biomechanical evaluation of implants with different surfaces: analysis of stability coefficient and removal torque in rabbits
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical evaluation of implants with different surfaces: analysis of stability coefficient and removal torque in rabbits
title_sort Biomechanical evaluation of implants with different surfaces: analysis of stability coefficient and removal torque in rabbits
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Rodríguez, Arminda
Navarro, María Cristina
Ibañez, Juan Carlos
Grenón, Miriam Silvina
author Rodríguez, Arminda
author_facet Rodríguez, Arminda
Navarro, María Cristina
Ibañez, Juan Carlos
Grenón, Miriam Silvina
author_role author
author2 Navarro, María Cristina
Ibañez, Juan Carlos
Grenón, Miriam Silvina
author2_role author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Dental Implants; Denture Retenction; Torque.
Implantes Dentales; Estabilidad de Dentadura; Torque
topic Dental Implants; Denture Retenction; Torque.
Implantes Dentales; Estabilidad de Dentadura; Torque
description Objective: Evaluate the biomechanical behavior of three implant brands with different surfaces by comparing stability parameters during placement and removal. Materials and Methods: An experimental study was conducted with 8 rabbits, in which 21 implants from three different brands were placed: ML Implant System®, Roster Dent®, and Biomet 3i® Osseotite. Seven implants of each brand were placed in each femur, and resonance frequency analysis was performed to measure the initial stability coefficient (initial ISQ). At 60 days, the final stability coefficient of the implants was measured. To measure removal torque, the implants were fixed in a press, and a Mark-10 precision digital torque wrench was used. Implants were removed by reverse rotation, recording the peak removal torque value. Results: Regarding initial-stage stability, the Roster Dent® and ML Implant System® groups showed higher values than the Biomet 3i® group, although differences were not significant (p=0.82). However, the ML Implant System® group showed lower final-stage stability (p=0.04). No statistically significant difference was observed between insertion and removal torque. Intergroup differences in removal torque were also non-significant. Conclusions: The studied implant systems demonstrated similar behavior during biomechanical insertion and removal torque testing. Differences were noted among all brands when comparing initial and final resonance frequency analyses (mechanical stability vs. biological stability). The ML Implant System® group showed a lower ISQ in the final stage.
publishDate 2025
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2025-04-30
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://portalrevistas.aulavirtualusmp.pe/index.php/Rev-Kiru0/article/view/3137
10.24265/kiru.2025.v22n2.02
url https://portalrevistas.aulavirtualusmp.pe/index.php/Rev-Kiru0/article/view/3137
identifier_str_mv 10.24265/kiru.2025.v22n2.02
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv spa
language spa
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://portalrevistas.aulavirtualusmp.pe/index.php/Rev-Kiru0/article/view/3137/3912
https://portalrevistas.aulavirtualusmp.pe/index.php/Rev-Kiru0/article/view/3137/3913
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
text/xml
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Facultad de Odontología.
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Facultad de Odontología.
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv KIRU ; Vol. 22 No. 2 (2025): KIRU (ABRIL - JUNIO); 73-82
KIRU ISSN (Impreso): 1812 - 7886 ISSN (Digital): 2410-2717; Vol. 22 Núm. 2 (2025): KIRU (ABRIL - JUNIO); 73-82
2410-2717
1812-7886
reponame:Revistas - Universidad de San Martín de Porres
instname:Universidad de San Martín de Porres
instacron:USMP
instname_str Universidad de San Martín de Porres
instacron_str USMP
institution USMP
reponame_str Revistas - Universidad de San Martín de Porres
collection Revistas - Universidad de San Martín de Porres
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1841809810512674816
spelling Biomechanical evaluation of implants with different surfaces: analysis of stability coefficient and removal torque in rabbitsEvaluación biomecánica de implantes con diferentes superficies: análisis de coeficiente de estabilidad y torque de remoción en conejosRodríguez, Arminda Navarro, María Cristina Ibañez, Juan Carlos Grenón, Miriam Silvina Dental Implants; Denture Retenction; Torque. Implantes Dentales; Estabilidad de Dentadura; TorqueObjective: Evaluate the biomechanical behavior of three implant brands with different surfaces by comparing stability parameters during placement and removal. Materials and Methods: An experimental study was conducted with 8 rabbits, in which 21 implants from three different brands were placed: ML Implant System®, Roster Dent®, and Biomet 3i® Osseotite. Seven implants of each brand were placed in each femur, and resonance frequency analysis was performed to measure the initial stability coefficient (initial ISQ). At 60 days, the final stability coefficient of the implants was measured. To measure removal torque, the implants were fixed in a press, and a Mark-10 precision digital torque wrench was used. Implants were removed by reverse rotation, recording the peak removal torque value. Results: Regarding initial-stage stability, the Roster Dent® and ML Implant System® groups showed higher values than the Biomet 3i® group, although differences were not significant (p=0.82). However, the ML Implant System® group showed lower final-stage stability (p=0.04). No statistically significant difference was observed between insertion and removal torque. Intergroup differences in removal torque were also non-significant. Conclusions: The studied implant systems demonstrated similar behavior during biomechanical insertion and removal torque testing. Differences were noted among all brands when comparing initial and final resonance frequency analyses (mechanical stability vs. biological stability). The ML Implant System® group showed a lower ISQ in the final stage.Objetivos: Evaluar el comportamiento biomecánico de tres marcas de implantes con diferentes superficies, mediante la comparación de parámetros de estabilidad al momento de colocación y de remoción. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un estudio experimental en 8 conejos, se colocaron 21 implantes de tres marcas: ML Implant System®, Roster Dent® y Biomet 3i® Osseotite. Se colocaron 7 implantes de cada marca en el fémur y se realizó análisis de frecuencia de resonancia para medir el coeficiente de estabilidad inicial (ISQ inicial). A los 60 días se midió el coeficiente de estabilidad final de los implantes. Para medir el torque de remoción se fijaron en prensa y se ajustó el torquímetro Mark-10 de precisión digital. Los implantes fueron removidos mediante rotación inversa obteniendo el valor pico de torque de desinserción. Resultados: En cuanto a la estabilidad en la etapa inicial, los grupos Roster Dent® y ML Implant System® resultaron mayores que el grupo Biomet-3i aunque no fueron significativas (p=0,82); sin embargo, el grupo ML Implant System® fue menor en la etapa final (p=0,04). Entre el torque de inserción y remoción no hubo diferencia estadísticamente significativa. Tampoco las diferencias intergrupales del torque de remoción resultaron significativas. Conclusiones: Los sistemas de implantes estudiados mostraron comportamiento similar durante la prueba biomecánica de torque de inserción y remoción. Hubo diferencia entre todas las marcas comparando el análisis de frecuencia de resonancia inicial y final (estabilidad mecánica y estabilidad biológica). El grupo ML Implant System® tuvo ISQ menor en la etapa final.Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Facultad de Odontología.2025-04-30info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdftext/xmlhttps://portalrevistas.aulavirtualusmp.pe/index.php/Rev-Kiru0/article/view/313710.24265/kiru.2025.v22n2.02KIRU ; Vol. 22 No. 2 (2025): KIRU (ABRIL - JUNIO); 73-82 KIRU ISSN (Impreso): 1812 - 7886 ISSN (Digital): 2410-2717; Vol. 22 Núm. 2 (2025): KIRU (ABRIL - JUNIO); 73-822410-27171812-7886reponame:Revistas - Universidad de San Martín de Porresinstname:Universidad de San Martín de Porresinstacron:USMPspahttps://portalrevistas.aulavirtualusmp.pe/index.php/Rev-Kiru0/article/view/3137/3912https://portalrevistas.aulavirtualusmp.pe/index.php/Rev-Kiru0/article/view/3137/3913Derechos de autor 2025 Arminda Rodríguez, María Cristina Navarro, Juan Carlos Ibañez, Miriam Silvina Grenónhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:revistas.usmp.edu.pe:article/31372025-05-13T20:21:45Z
score 12.851315
Nota importante:
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).