Cylindrical Vs. Conical Dental Implants
Aug 12, 2024
Cylindrical vs. Conical Implants
As dental technology continues to evolve, the choice of implant shape has become a crucial decision. In this article, we will compare cylindrical and conical implants, providing an in-depth analysis of the morphology, advantages and disadvantages.
What are the shapes of implants?
Implants come in a variety of shapes and can be categorized as foliate implants, cylindrical implants, micro-conical implants, spiral implants, anchor implants, etc.
Generally speaking, there are cylindrical implants, conical implants, and a mixture of the two, but the mainstream implant shapes are mainly cylindrical and conical.
Implants can also be categorized into neck, body and root according to their shape.
Depending on whether or not they are integrated with the abutment, they are divided into one-piece implants, in which the implant and abutment are integrated, and two-piece implants, in which the implant and abutment are segmented.
What is the difference between a conical implant and a cylindrical implant?
The term "cylindrical" refers to Implants with a neck diameter that is the same as the body diameter are called cylindrical implants, whereas implants with a neck diameter that is larger than the body diameter and that are progressively narrower than the root are called conical implants.
In terms of mathematical geometry, a cylindrical implant is similar to a cylinder and therefore has the same diameter at the neck and root, so the osseointegrated area is equivalent to a rectangle and therefore has a larger surface area, whereas a conical implant is similar to a cone and has a smaller surface.
Most of the hybrid shaped implants have a slightly larger diameter at the neck post than at the body post. This design concept changes the fact that a post implant allows for greater bone extrusion forces in the cortical bone of the neck and has a high degree of stability; whereas an implant with a post at the neck and a body section approximating a cone has a high degree of self-tapping and therefore allows for greater stability and is more likely to have good initial stability.
Application scenarios for cylindrical and conical implants
By and large, cylindrical implants can withstand relatively strong biting forces after forming an osseointegration in the posterior region where there is plenty of bone. Their rounded root design is also relatively favorable for maxillary sinus lift surgery.
Conical implants, with a shape closer to the natural tooth root, are more suitable for immediate extraction and implantation, and for immediate weight-bearing surgery in the edentulous jaw.
What are the "pros and cons" of conical and cylindrical implants?
Swiss Topmay Implantology Systems has carried out a return test on 32 SPI implants (13 rounded cylindrical implants and 19 conical implants) produced by Topmay after 6 months of weight-bearing, with the following results:
RESULTS: The results of alveolar ridge bone loss at the implant margins after 6 months of weight bearing were: cylindrical up to 0.84 (±0.29) ㎜; conical up to 0.7 open 3 (±0.62) ㎜.
(Note: In order to ensure that the results of the experiment are almost free of bias, the imaging equipment used in this experiment and the conditions of filming and measurement methods were consistent.)
CONCLUSION: In this study, although the bone loss index of cylindrical implants was slightly higher than that of conical, the difference between the two was not statistically significant.
Previous studies have found that the conical implant design increases initial stability and promotes a tight connection between the implant and the surrounding bone.
In addition, some studies have shown that cylindrical implants are preferred over conical implants in areas of low bone density.
However, these studies have their own drawbacks, namely the small sample size of the clinical trials and another limitation is that the follow-up period is only 6 months.
In conclusion, there are no substantial advantages or disadvantages of the cylindrical implant versus the conical implant, but only differences in the indications, and only by choosing the right implant for the right condition can the different implant shapes be of greater value.
