الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 27 |  |  |
| | | from | 27 | | |
Abstract
Dental implants are considered predictable devices for the replacement of missing teeth, achieving success rates beyond 90% in the long term, and their use has become routine in dental practice, one of the factor this success is the primary stability of an implant. Implant design one of the most important key factor that play role in primary stability and stress distribution during osseointegration, the geometric features of an implant influence sufficient initial contact to facilitate primary stability of the implant. The implant design may influence the stability, plays osseointegration process and the overall success of process. Features of Implant such as macro- and micro-design can increase contact surface area and that may improve mechanical anchorage and stability. There are many factors have not been adequately studied that could have effects on bone remodeling in the postoperative period, and implant thread design is one of these factors, including thread pitch, depth, and shape.
Objectives: The purpose of this study is comparing between the role of macro thread design and the micro thread design on implant stability through use Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA).
Materials and Methods: The study carried out on 6 patients, each of these patients has missing teeth with sufficient bone volume for implant placement in both side of posterior area in the lower jaw. All the right sides received micro thread design implant (dentium implant,) and the left side received macro thread design implant (Megagen AnyRidge,). After dental implants placed the stability measured by using the Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) to assess the stability of the two types of implants, which are the types that has been mentioned earlier, in relation to thread pitch (wide vs narrow pitch) at three time periods: At the time of placing the implant, 3 months and 6 months to compare between the finding for the two different design implants. All patients were followed for 6 months. Clinically, each patient was evaluated for pain, healing and stability of the implant. Radiographically, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used for the assessment of bone density. After 4 months, final crowns were delivered.
Results: There was a significant increase in both the stability and bone density for the two groups from immediate postoperative to the 6 months. The mean implant Stability value for group A was 70.57±5.74 immediately post operatively, then increased on the 3 month to 77.14±6.74 and increased significantly to reach 84.29±6.02 on the 6 month, for group B was 63.29±6.58 immediately post operatively, then increased on the 3 month 70.57±4.69 and on the 6 month 77.14±4.53. The results of the study showed that the mean bone density value for group A on the 3 month was 481.98± 51.78 and In the 6 month was 504.28± 47.50, in group B the 3 months was 439.54±70.49 and In the 6 month was 463.83± 74.44.