Comparison of implant stability measurements between a resonance frequency analysis device and a modified damping capacity analysis device: anin vitrostudy

Abstract

Purpose: A stability-measuring device that utilizes damping capacity analysis (DCA) has recently been introduced in the field of dental implantology. This study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and reliability of this device by measuring the implant stability of ex vivo samples in comparison with a resonance frequency analysis (RFA) device. Methods: Six implant beds were prepared in porcine ribs using 3 different drilling protocols to simulate various implant stability conditions. Thirty-six pork ribs and 216 bone-level implants measuring 10 mm in height were used. The implant beds were prepared using 1 of the following 3 drilling protocols: 10-mm drilling depth with a 3.5-mm-diameter twist drill, 5-mm drilling depth with a 4.0-mm-diameter twist drill, and 10-mm drilling depth with a 4.0-mm-diameter twist drill. The first 108 implants were external-connection implants 4.0 mm in diameter, while the other 108 implants were internal-connection implants 4.3 mm in diameter. The peak insertion torque (PIT) during implant placement, the stability values obtained with DCA and RFA devices after implant placement, and the peak removal torque (PRT) during implant removal were measured. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of the implant stability quotient (ISQ) results obtained using the RFA device at the medial, distal, ventral, and dorsal points were 0.997, 0.994, 0.994, and 0.998, respectively. The ICCs of the implant stability test (IST) results obtained using the DCA device at the corresponding locations were 0.972, 0.975, 0.974, and 0.976, respectively. Logarithmic relationships between PIT and IST, PIT and ISQ, PRT and IST, and PRT and ISQ were observed. The mean absolute difference between the ISQ and IST values on a Bland-Altman plot was −6.76 (−25.05 to 11.53, P<0.05). Conclusions: Within the limits of ex vivo studies, measurements made using the RFA and DCA devices were found to be correlated under a variety of stability conditions.

Primary Stability of Orthodontic Titanium Miniscrews due to Cortical Bone Density and Re-Insertion

“…PTV ranged between -8 and 50, where lower values indicate better stability [ 13 ]. An IST value below 59 indicated that the miniscrew was unstable, while between 60 and 64 indicated moderate stability and above 65 indicated high stability [ 13 ].…”

“…PTV ranged between -8 and 50, where lower values indicate better stability [ 13 ]. An IST value below 59 indicated that the miniscrew was unstable, while between 60 and 64 indicated moderate stability and above 65 indicated high stability [ 13 ]. The PTV of the initial insertion and re-insertion was 2.44 ± 1.11 and 3.26 ± 0.72 for non-cortical bone, -0.84 ± 0.33 and -0.30 ± 0.75 for 30 pcf bone, -2.52 ± 0.44 and -2.18 ± 0.78 for 40 pcf bone, and -3.62 ± 0.41 and -4.12 ± 0.23 for 50 pcf bone, respectively ( Figure 7 a).…”

“…Larger micromotion should be regarded as a sign of implant failure. PTV and IST are two commercial hand-held micromotion measurement devices that obtain micromotion data by repeatedly tapping the implant [ 13 ]. Micromotion decreased with increasing cortical bone density in the current study, which was attributed to the higher porosity and elasticity of the low-density cortical bone.…”

“…Immediately after miniscrew placement using the automatic torque device, micromotion was evaluated based on the Periotest value (PTV) (Medizintechnik Gulden, Modautal, Germany) and implant stability testing (IST) (AnyCheck, Neo Biotech, Seoul, Korea). The artificial bone was fixed using clamps to minimize movement and the instruments were calibrated before each measurement [ 13 ]. Each miniscrew was measured in triplicate to calculate a mean value.…”

Reliability and Validity of Three Instruments for Measuring Implant Stability Quotient

“…Considering an alpha error of 0.05 and a beta error of 0.2, in a two-sided test, a minimum of 20 samples were necessary on each group to identify a statistically significant difference greater than or equal than to 2 units. Based on a recent study [14], standard deviation was assumed to be 5 and the correlation coefficient measurements was 0.9. The second device was Penguin ® (Integration Diagnostics Sweden AB, Göteborg, Sweden).…”