Relevance of resonance frequency analysis to evaluate dental implant stability: simulation and histomorphometrical animal experiments

Ito, Yoshihiro; Sato, Daisuke; Yoneda, Satoshi; Ito, Daisuke; Kondo, Hisatomo; Kasugai, Shohei

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01419.x

Cited by 101 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Though some studies have shown that secondary stability is correlated to the surface properties of dental implants (19), the present findings did not support this theory. Other factors, such as strong bone anchorage (18,24), stiffness of the surrounding bone (2,18,19), type of implant used and surgical technique (18,25) may support the current results. Nevertheless, the increases in RFA values that occur during implant healing and have been attributed to increased bone anchorage cannot be explained by histomorphometric data (18,25).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…Other factors, such as strong bone anchorage (18,24), stiffness of the surrounding bone (2,18,19), type of implant used and surgical technique (18,25) may support the current results. Nevertheless, the increases in RFA values that occur during implant healing and have been attributed to increased bone anchorage cannot be explained by histomorphometric data (18,25). As observed in this study, no correlations between histomorphometric parameters of osseointegration and ISQ values could be identified by other authors (2,18,24,25).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of Implant Surfaces on Osseointegration: A Histomorphometric and Implant Stability Study in Rabbits

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability and osseointegration of implant with different wettability using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and histomorphometric analysis (bone implant contact, BIC; and bone area fraction occupied, BAFO) after 2 and 4 weeks in rabbit tibiae. Thirty-two Morse taper implants (length 7 mm, diameter 3.5 mm) were divided according to surface characteristics (n=8): Neo, sandblasted and dual acidetched; and Aq, sandblasted followed by dual acid-etched and maintained in an isotonic solution of 0.9% sodium chloride. Sixteen New Zealand rabbits were used. Two implants of each group were installed in the right and left tibiae according to the experimental periods. The RFA (Ostell®) was obtained immediately and after the sacrifice (2 and 4 weeks). The bone/implant blocks were processed for histomorphometric analysis. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's test and Pearson's correlation for ISQ, BIC and BAFO parameters (p=0.05). No significant effect of implant, period of evaluation or interaction between implant and period of evaluation was found for BIC and BAFO values (p>0.05). Only period of evaluation had significant effect for RFA values at 4 weeks (p=0.001), and at 2 weeks (p<0.001). RFA values were significantly higher at the final period of evaluation compared with those obtained at early periods. There was a significant correlation between BIC values and BAFO values (p=0.009). Both implant surfaces, Aq and Neo, were able to produce similar implant bone integration when normal cortical bone instrumentation was performed. Influence of Implant Surfaces o n O s s e o i n t e g r a t i o n : A Histomorphometric and Implant S t a b i l i t y S t u d y i n R a b b i t s

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Influence of Implant Surfaces on Osseointegration: A Histomorphometric and Implant Stability Study in Rabbits

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ito et al (2008) similarly found that resonance frequency analysis did not correlate with histological bone-to-implant contact but also concluded that the connection between the implant and bone at the neck region of the implant affects the value significantly. Hence they considered that the resonance frequency analysis was useful for monitoring implant osseointegration clinically.…”

Section: Resonance Frequency Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of NobelActive^TM dental implants

Yeung

Zee

et al. 2011

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To conduct a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the short‐term clinical and radiographic efficacy of the NobelActive™ system and to evaluate the relative importance of achieving primary stability at placement. Materials and methods A total of 32 subjects were recruited and, using a split‐mouth design, the NobelActiveTM implant was compared with a contralaterally matched Brånemark implant. Both implants were placed in a single surgical procedure into healed sites using a one‐stage protocol and reviewed at monthly intervals. NobelActiveTM implants were functionally loaded with provisional restorations at 1 month and all implants were restored with final crowns 3 months post‐implant placement. The implant was assessed using peak insertion torque values, resonance frequency analysis (RFA), clinical parameters, digital subtraction radiography, and cone beam computed tomography. Results The insertion torque was significantly greater for the NobelActiveTM implant group (P = 0.02), although no observable difference in RFA values were found. Preliminary results of 6 months follow‐up suggest comparable clinical and radiographic healing responses between the test and control implants. Within the limits of the sample population, the survival rates were lower with the test implants, although this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions The NobelActiveTM implant system requires higher insertion torques and can also achieve greater primary stability compared with a control implant system. Short‐term survival and marginal bone levels of NobelActiveTM and control implants are comparable, although the NobelActiveTM implant system appeared to be more technique‐sensitive.

show abstract

“…Also, the rod and the test surface must maintain 0.6-2.0mm distance and if the distance is over 5mm, the measured value may be insignificant. (Ito, et al 2008, Schulte 1988. Periotest ® has limited clinical use since it cannot measure the mesiodistal mobility and the position and angle of the rod affects the measured value.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant Stability - Measuring Devices and Randomized Clinical Trial for ISQ Value Change Pattern Measured from Two Different Directions by Magnetic RFA

Park¹,

Lee²,

Kim³

et al. 2011

Implant Dentistry - A Rapidly Evolving Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relevance of resonance frequency analysis to evaluate dental implant stability: simulation and histomorphometrical animal experiments

Cited by 101 publications

References 22 publications

Influence of Implant Surfaces on Osseointegration: A Histomorphometric and Implant Stability Study in Rabbits

Influence of Implant Surfaces on Osseointegration: A Histomorphometric and Implant Stability Study in Rabbits

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of NobelActive^TM dental implants

Implant Stability - Measuring Devices and Randomized Clinical Trial for ISQ Value Change Pattern Measured from Two Different Directions by Magnetic RFA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Relevance of resonance frequency analysis to evaluate dental implant stability: simulation and histomorphometrical animal experiments

Cited by 101 publications

References 22 publications

Influence of Implant Surfaces on Osseointegration: A Histomorphometric and Implant Stability Study in Rabbits

Influence of Implant Surfaces on Osseointegration: A Histomorphometric and Implant Stability Study in Rabbits

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of NobelActiveTM dental implants

Implant Stability - Measuring Devices and Randomized Clinical Trial for ISQ Value Change Pattern Measured from Two Different Directions by Magnetic RFA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of NobelActive^TM dental implants