The Effects of Superficial Roughness and Design on the Primary Stability of Dental Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary implant stability has been used as an indicator for future osseointegration and whether an immediate/early loading protocol should be applied. Implant stability is the key to clinical success. PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to analyze the influence of the design and surface morphology on the primary stability of dental implants. The insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) were the parameters used to measure the primary stability of the implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty implants, divided in six groups of five samples were placed in cylinder of high molecular weight polyethylene. The groups were different upon two designs (cylindrical and conic) and three implant surfaces finishing (machined, acid etched, and anodized). The insertion torque was quantified by a digital torque driver (Lutron Electronic Enterprise Co., Taipei, Taiwan) and the resonance frequency was measured by Osstell mentor™ (Integration Diagnostics AB, Göteborg, Sweden). The implant surface morphology was characterized by scanning electron microscopy, roughness measurement, and friction coefficient. RESULTS: The machined implants showed smaller insertion torques than treated implant surfaces. There were no differences between the RFA measurements in all tested surfaces. Statistical analyses demonstrated no correlation between the dental implant insertion torque and primary stability measured by the RFA. The implants with treated surfaces showed greater roughness, a higher friction coefficient, and demanded a larger insertion torque than machined implants. The results of the surface roughness and friction coefficients are in accordance with the results of the insertion torque. The difference, across the insertion torque values, between conical and cylindrical implants, can be explained by the different contact surface area among the thread geometry of these implants. CONCLUSION: The maximum implant insertion torque depends on the implant geometry, thread form, and implant surface morphology. The placement of conical implants with treated surfaces required the highest insertion torque. There was no correlation between RFA and insertion torque implant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".