Correlation of Implant Stability Between Two Noninvasive Methods Using Submerged and Nonsubmerged Healing Protocols: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Aal, Marwa Abdel; Far, Mahmoud El; Sheta, Nora; Fayyad, Ahmed; Desouky, Eman D. El; Nabi, Nouran Abdel; Ibrahim, Mohamed‐Kamal

doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-d-19-00130

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the day of implant installation, patients were randomized using sealed envelopes into two groups: nonsubmerged (NS) and submerged (S); a 3-month healing period was allowed for all patients in both groups. The present study has followed the same inclusion criteria, sample size calculation, and all of the clinical relevant procedures as the trail performed by AAl et al 25 All included patients (age range: 50–69 years) were recruited following strict inclusion criteria: patients with glycosylated hemoglobin level ≥8, patients seeking to install a single median implant in the mandible, and for whom new dentures will be constructed were included. Patients with any condition that would contraindicate implant placement were excluded.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant Stability Changes for a Single Implant Mandibular Overdenture

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant Stability Changes for a Single Implant Mandibular Overdenture

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the day of implant installation, patients were randomized using sealed envelopes into two groups, nonsubmerged (NS) and submerged (S), and a 3-month healing period was allowed for all patients in both groups. The present study has followed the same inclusion criteria, sample size calculation, and all of the clinical relevant procedures of the trail carried out by Aal et al [ 35 ]. All included patients (age ranging from 50–69 years) were recruited following strict inclusion criteria: glycosylated hemoglobin level ≥ 8, patients seeking to install a single median implant in the mandible, and for whom new dentures will be constructed were included.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant Stability Changes for Nonsubmerged and Submerged Protocols for a Single Implant Mandibular Overdenture Using Ball Attachment

Salah

Foda

Abdalla

et al. 2021

International Journal of Dentistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have reported a correlation between RFA and DCA device values, indicating the stability of the same implant. 16 17 18 19 20 In vitro studies showed a strong correlation (more than 0.7) between RFA and DCA devices. 16 19 20 Lee et al 16 showed a correlation coefficient of 0.981 with statistical significance between the ISQ and implant stability tester (IST; Anycheck) values; Krafft et al 19 also reported a correlation coefficient of 0.871 with statistical significance between ISQ and PTV.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Andreotti et al 17 reported a correlation coefficient of 0.294 between ISQ value and PTV with statistical significance through a systematic review. Aal et al 18 showed that when correlating ISQ value and PTV readings of the buccal surface during implant installation, there was a moderate negative statistically significant correlation (correlation coefficient:-0.466) between the two devices for all 80 patients in a clinical trial. The different results between the experimental and clinical conditions suggest that there are factors in clinical conditions that affect the reliability of implant stability measuring devices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of implant stability measuring devices depending on various clinical conditions: an in vitro study

Lee,

Kim,

Lee

et al. 2023

J Adv Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of implant stability measuring devices depending on the location of the implant and the position of the patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS Six implants were installed in different dentate sextants of six artificial bone models. Implant stability was measured in three conditions of the bone model (without mounting on a phantom head, mounted on a phantom head in supine position, and mounted on a phantom head in upright position). A resonance frequency analysis device (Osstell) and two damping capacity analysis devices (Periotest and Anycheck) were used to measure implant stability. The values measured outside the phantom head were treated as controls, and the values inside the phantom head were compared using an independent t -test. RESULTS Osstell showed different results in two of the six divisions in both the supine and upright positions compared to outside of the mouth ( P < .05). Periotest showed different results in all six parts in the supine position and in five parts in the upright position compared to outside of the mouth ( P < .05). While Anycheck showed different results in five areas in the supine position compared to outside of the mouth, it showed different results in only one area in the upright position ( P < .05). CONCLUSION In the difficult implant position for the operator to access, the implant stability measuring devices show less reliability. The accessibility of implant is greatly affected in the order of Osstell, Anycheck, and Periotest.

show abstract

Correlation of Implant Stability Between Two Noninvasive Methods Using Submerged and Nonsubmerged Healing Protocols: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Cited by 9 publications

References 30 publications

Implant Stability Changes for a Single Implant Mandibular Overdenture

Implant Stability Changes for a Single Implant Mandibular Overdenture

Implant Stability Changes for Nonsubmerged and Submerged Protocols for a Single Implant Mandibular Overdenture Using Ball Attachment

Reliability of implant stability measuring devices depending on various clinical conditions: an in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About