COMPARISON OF IMPLANT SURFACE AND DESIGN AND THE IMPACT OF THEIR PROCESSING ON PRIMARY STABILITY

Subject. The dependence of primary stability of dental implants on the macro design and surface treatment method. Objectives. Comparing the primary stability of dental implants in different bone types depending on surface structure and macro design. Methodology. The study was conducted at the Department of Surgical Dentistry of Bashkir State Medical University. Four models of implants were used (Dentium SuperLine, Dental Synthesis NCTI, Dental Synthesis NCTI surface PEO, Dental Synthesis Synthes Pro), 12 units each, size 4.0×8 mm. Placement was performed in artificial bone blocks 3B Biomechanical with density D1–D4. Primary stability was assessed using the resonance frequency analysis method by determining the implant stability quotient (ISQ) using a Penguin RFA device. Results. In dense bone type D1, the implant with the NitroEX surface treatment method demonstrated lower ISQ values (70; p ≤ 0.05). In bone types D2 and D3, primary stability did not differ significantly. In soft bone type D4, higher ISQ values were observed in implants with a square thread profile (42.75 and 44; p ≤ 0.05), while specimens with V-shaped thread showed lower ISQ (39.25 and 38.75; p ≤ 0.05). Conclusions. Macro design and surface treatment method have different effects depending on the bone type. In D1 bone, macro design and surface treatment had a significant effect. The implant with NitroEX surface treatment showed significantly lower stability compared to implants with S.L.A. and PEO treatment. In D2 and D3 bone, the influence of macro design and surface treatment was negligible — primary stability differed insignificantly. In D4 bone, implants with a square thread profile demonstrated significantly higher ISQ values (42.75 and 44; p ≤ 0.05).