It has been clinically demonstrated that implant stability plays a significant role in determining treatment outcomes (Sennerby & Meredith 1998, Esposito et al. 1998). Implants show high success rates if certain preconditions are fulfilled (Sennerby & Meredith 2000, 2008).
Clinicians from all over the world participated to Osstell Scientific Symposium at EAO Congress 2018 in Vienna, on October 11th.
Have you ever placed an implant in an augmented bone site and added another few months of healing time just to be on the safe side?
It has long been recognized in the dental implant literature that implant stability is a critical factor in predictable treatment outcomes. Both primary stability (mechanical stability) and stability prior to provisionalization or restoration of the implant should be considered in the individual treatment plan. The secondary (aka biological stability) will indicate the level of osseointegration when compared to the initial primary stability (mechanical stability) at placement of the implant. There are other factors, of course, to be considered but there is little disagreement in the literature that implant stability is key.
Primary and secondary stability is a much discussed topic. Which one should a clinician aim for to achieve successful implant treatments? We met with Dr. Stephen Jacobs after his lecture at the AO Annual Meeting about primary and secondary implant stability to clarify things.
Could you explain the difference between primary and secondary stability?