Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2046773485> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W2046773485 endingPage "372" @default.
- W2046773485 startingPage "366" @default.
- W2046773485 abstract "Statement of problem It is difficult to achieve the primary stability necessary for immediate loading in the posterior maxilla because of thin cortical bone, low density trabecular bone, and inadequate bone height due to the presence of the maxillary sinus. Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the primary stability of dental implants placed by using different methods of preparation for in vitro monocortical and bicortical models of the posterior maxilla. Material and methods Sixty screw-shaped implants (4.0 × 10 mm) were inserted into solid rigid polyurethane blocks. The implants were divided into 6 groups (n=10) to test 2 variables: 1) location (monocortical or bicortical block) and 2) preparation method (standard preparation, underpreparation, or the osteotome technique). The insertion and removal torques were measured and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was performed to determine the primary stability of each implant. Insertion and removal torque data were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA, followed by the post hoc Tukey HSD multiple comparison test. RFA data were analyzed by 2-way and 1-way ANOVAs and the Tukey HSD multiple comparison test (α=.05). The Pearson correlation analysis was also performed to examine correlations among the values. Results The preparation method had a significant effect on insertion torque, RFA value, and removal torque; however location had a significant effect only on the removal torque (P<.001). There was a significant interaction between location and preparation method for RFA values (P=.045) and a significant difference in standard preparation method according to the location (P=.039); however, there was no significant difference in underpreparation (P=1.00) and osteotome technique (P=1.00). Statistically significant correlations were found between insertion torque and RFA values (r=0.529, P< .001), insertion torque and removal torque values (r=0.517, P< .001), and removal torque and RFA values (r=0.481, P<.001). Conclusions Underpreparation and bicortical fixation significantly increased implant stability and the osteotome technique decreased implant stability in synthetic bone models that mimicked the posterior maxillary region. The primary stability values had statistically significant correlations to each other. It is difficult to achieve the primary stability necessary for immediate loading in the posterior maxilla because of thin cortical bone, low density trabecular bone, and inadequate bone height due to the presence of the maxillary sinus. The purpose of this study was to examine the primary stability of dental implants placed by using different methods of preparation for in vitro monocortical and bicortical models of the posterior maxilla. Sixty screw-shaped implants (4.0 × 10 mm) were inserted into solid rigid polyurethane blocks. The implants were divided into 6 groups (n=10) to test 2 variables: 1) location (monocortical or bicortical block) and 2) preparation method (standard preparation, underpreparation, or the osteotome technique). The insertion and removal torques were measured and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was performed to determine the primary stability of each implant. Insertion and removal torque data were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA, followed by the post hoc Tukey HSD multiple comparison test. RFA data were analyzed by 2-way and 1-way ANOVAs and the Tukey HSD multiple comparison test (α=.05). The Pearson correlation analysis was also performed to examine correlations among the values. The preparation method had a significant effect on insertion torque, RFA value, and removal torque; however location had a significant effect only on the removal torque (P<.001). There was a significant interaction between location and preparation method for RFA values (P=.045) and a significant difference in standard preparation method according to the location (P=.039); however, there was no significant difference in underpreparation (P=1.00) and osteotome technique (P=1.00). Statistically significant correlations were found between insertion torque and RFA values (r=0.529, P< .001), insertion torque and removal torque values (r=0.517, P< .001), and removal torque and RFA values (r=0.481, P<.001). Underpreparation and bicortical fixation significantly increased implant stability and the osteotome technique decreased implant stability in synthetic bone models that mimicked the posterior maxillary region. The primary stability values had statistically significant correlations to each other." @default.
- W2046773485 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2046773485 creator A5024390397 @default.
- W2046773485 creator A5036576913 @default.
- W2046773485 creator A5048102666 @default.
- W2046773485 creator A5062638196 @default.
- W2046773485 creator A5064483791 @default.
- W2046773485 date "2012-06-01" @default.
- W2046773485 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
- W2046773485 title "Differences in implant stability associated with various methods of preparation of the implant bed: An in vitro study" @default.
- W2046773485 cites W1520230219 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W1905702933 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W1977753976 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W1982239608 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W1982511196 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W1992958316 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2015604220 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2021070776 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2049797190 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2050233958 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2051799337 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2057853382 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2071032741 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2071672587 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2075684637 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2085940504 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2097179212 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2104751972 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2143365888 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2151882963 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2162146919 @default.
- W2046773485 cites W2182701825 @default.
- W2046773485 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(12)60092-4" @default.
- W2046773485 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22633592" @default.
- W2046773485 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
- W2046773485 type Work @default.
- W2046773485 sameAs 2046773485 @default.
- W2046773485 citedByCount "47" @default.
- W2046773485 countsByYear W20467734852012 @default.
- W2046773485 countsByYear W20467734852013 @default.
- W2046773485 countsByYear W20467734852014 @default.
- W2046773485 countsByYear W20467734852015 @default.
- W2046773485 countsByYear W20467734852016 @default.
- W2046773485 countsByYear W20467734852017 @default.
- W2046773485 countsByYear W20467734852018 @default.
- W2046773485 countsByYear W20467734852019 @default.
- W2046773485 countsByYear W20467734852020 @default.
- W2046773485 countsByYear W20467734852021 @default.
- W2046773485 countsByYear W20467734852022 @default.
- W2046773485 countsByYear W20467734852023 @default.
- W2046773485 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2046773485 hasAuthorship W2046773485A5024390397 @default.
- W2046773485 hasAuthorship W2046773485A5036576913 @default.
- W2046773485 hasAuthorship W2046773485A5048102666 @default.
- W2046773485 hasAuthorship W2046773485A5062638196 @default.
- W2046773485 hasAuthorship W2046773485A5064483791 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C105702510 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C122246415 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C136229726 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C139072283 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C2775890951 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C2776389721 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C2778846597 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C2779137508 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C2780338112 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C2781411149 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C2781451080 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C2992886853 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C3018023364 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConcept C99476002 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C105702510 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C105795698 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C122246415 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C136229726 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C139072283 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C141071460 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C192562407 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C199343813 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C2775890951 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C2776389721 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C2778846597 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C2779137508 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C2780338112 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C2781411149 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C2781451080 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C29694066 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C2992886853 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C3018023364 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C33923547 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C71924100 @default.
- W2046773485 hasConceptScore W2046773485C99476002 @default.