Various invasive and non-invasive methods have been used for measuring primary implant stability. Periotest damping device, and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) with the Osstell device have been classified as non-invasive methods.In this clinical randomized trial, a general correlation of primary implant stability was recorded using both the Osstell and Periotest device at the day of implant installation and 3 month after healing for the submerged and non submerged   loading protocols. The gender of included patients were investigated in the correlation of the two devices.Eighty completely edentulous patients were recruited, all patients were of age ranging from 50 to 69 years old. A single implant was installed in the midline of the completely edentulous mandible to improve retention of their lower denture. After implant installation, Implant Stability was recorded using the osstel and periotest device. Patients were then randomized into two groups using sealed envelopes; Submerged (S), and Non Submerged (NS). All ISQ and PTV were recorded at the day of implant installation, and 3 month after healing for both groups.When the ISQ was correlated to the (PTV), there was a moderate negative statistically significant correlation between the two readings, correlation coefficient= -0.466, p=0.000 . There tends to be a weak negative correlation between the two devices in the male group ,while there tends to be no correlation between the two devices in the female group After 3 month healing, there was no statistically significant correlation of the readings with in both groups ;NS and S ; Correlation coefficient =-0.014, -0.430, p=0.942, 0.052 respectively.   A strong negative statistically significant correlation between the two devices for the female group for both, NS and the S group. While there was no statistically significant correlation with in the male group for both groups.The present study concluded that there is a significant negative correlation between the two devices when recording primary implant stability, while this significance is lost after 3 month of loading when recording secondary implant stability. Gender would affect the implant stability recording, this would mainly due to the difference in bone density between the male and female group.

Objective. The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the masticatory ability subjectively between ball and Cendres+Métaux Locator (CM-LOC) attachment for a single implant retained mandibular overdenture throughout a 24-month follow-up period. Materials and Methods. Eighty completely edentulous patients were recruited. All patients received new complete dentures, and masticatory ability was recorded using a questionnaire (baseline record). All patients received a single implant in the midline of the completely edentulous mandible. After 3-month healing period, patients were randomized using sealed envelopes into two groups: ball or CM-LOC attachment. The same masticatory ability questionnaire was used to record masticatory ability for both groups after 2 weeks of pickup and 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. Comparison between the study groups was done using Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples. Two-sided P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results. The mean masticatory scores improved for both attachments, with no statistically significant difference between them throughout the 24-month follow-up. The CM-LOC attachment group showed a greater improvement change in masticatory ability after 6- and 12-month follow-up (−12.47 ± 12.006, −11.46 ± 14.625; P = 0.826 ), while the ball attachment group showed a slight improvement after the 24-month follow-up (−11.72 ± 12.368, −10.88 ± 11.963; P = 0.778 ). Conclusion. Single implant retained mandibular overdenture improved masticatory ability subjectively with no significant difference between both attachments used although the ball attachment showed better masticatory ability scores after 24-month follow-up.

Objectives To compare the changes in implant stability for the nonsubmerged and submerged protocols for a single-implant retained mandibular overdenture using Cendres and Metaux Locator attachment throughout a 24-month follow-up. Materials and Methods Eighty edentulous patients who were seeking to install a single implant in the midline of the completely edentulous mandible. At the day of implant installation, patients were randomized into two groups using sealed envelopes: the nonsubmerged and submerged groups. After 3 months of healing period, randomization using sealed envelopes was performed and patients were randomized to receive the Cendres and Metaux Locator attachment. The periotest readings were recorded using the Periotest M device, every 3 months for the first year and annually in the second year. The scope of this clinical trial focused only on results of the Cendres and Metaux attachment. Statistical Analysis The Mann–Whitney U-test was used for comparison between study groups for independent samples. Two-sided p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the mean periotest readings of both groups throughout the 24-month follow-up. Both groups showed an improvement in mean periotest readings with the submerged group tending to show greater stability at 6, 12, and 24-month follow-ups. Conclusions The nonsubmerged and the submerged healing protocols resulted in reliable periotest readings with the submerged group showing greater improvement than the nonsubmerged, although this improvement is nonsignificant when using the Cendres and Metaux attachment for a single mandibular overdenture.

Objectives. To compare the changes in implant stability for the nonsubmerged (NS) and submerged (S) protocols for the single implant retained mandibular overdenture using ball attachment throughout a 24-month follow-up. Materials and Methods. Eighty completely edentulous patients were seeking to improve retention of their lower complete denture by installing a single implant in the midline of the completely edentulous mandible. At the day of implant installation, patients were randomized into 2 groups using sealed envelopes: the nonsubmerged (NS) and submerged (S) group. After a 3-month healing period, all patients were randomized using sealed envelopes into ball attachment and CM-LOC attachment. The Periotest readings (PTV) was recorded using the Periotest M device and was recorded every 3 months for the first year and then annually in the second year. The scope of this clinical trial focused only on results of the ball attachment. The Mann–Whitney U test was used for comparison between study groups for independent samples. Two-sided p values less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean change in PTV reading between the NS and S group at the different follow-up intervals. Initially, at the day of pickup (baseline) and 3-month follow-up, the mean PTV reading for the NS was greater than that of the S group (−4.471 ± 1.489, −4.391 ± 1.4727 ( p = 0.913 )), while the S group has shown a greater improvement in PTV than the NS group after 6-month follow-up and continued throughout the 24-month follow-up (−5.730 ± 1.7804, −50855 ± 1.2581 ( p = 1 )). Conclusion. Both the nonsubmerged and the submerged healing protocol have shown reliable Periotest readings using ball attachment for a single implant retained overdenture. The submerged group has resulted in a greater improvement in Periotest readings after the 12- and 24-month follow-up period when compared to the nonsubmerged group although this improvement was not statistically significant.

Background : Submerged healing is the most commonly used healing protocol for successful osseointegration. Recently, it has been reported that osseointegration can also be effectively achieved using a non-submerged healing protocol.Aim/Hypothesis : To evaluate changes in implant stability (ISQ value) for submerged and non-submerged healing of single mandibular implants after 3 months of healing.Material and Methods : Eighty completely edentulous patients were recruited from the outpatient clinic of the Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. All patients in this study were seeking to receive a single implant in the midline of the mandible to improve the retention of their mandibular complete dentures. After implant installation, a smart peg was screwed on the installed implant, and the ISQ values for each of the four implant`s sides were recorded with the Osstell device. Patients were then randomized into two healing groups of 40 patients each using sealed envelopes, i.e. submerged and non-submerged. For both groups the fitting surface of the denture was relieved ensuring that no contact was present between the osteotomy site healing abutment and the fitting surface of the denture. Then the denture was relined using soft liner material. Three months after implant installation implant stability was recorded again using the Osstell device.Results : At the end of the 3 months healing period, 6 patients had lost their implant; 2 patients in the non-submerged group and 4 patients in the submerged group. In addition, 3 patients dropped out of the study in the submerged group (S) and 15 patients refused to have ISQ values recorded; 6 patients in the submerged group and 9 patients in the non-submerged group. Therefore, a total of 56 patients were available for analysis of the implant stability. There was a statistically significant decrease in the ISQ values over the 3-month healing period in both groups.However, this decrease was smaller in the non-submerged group than in the submerged group.Non-submerged Submerged.