STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. How the ISQ values measured by $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor are related, and whether the ISQ values acquired from the two machines changes in accordance with changes in implant stability are not yet fully understood. PURPOSE. The aim of this st...
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. How the ISQ values measured by $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor are related, and whether the ISQ values acquired from the two machines changes in accordance with changes in implant stability are not yet fully understood. PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to find out correlation between the ISQ values acquired from $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor, and to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and accuracy of two devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS. Sixty two implants were inserted into 47 patients, and their ISQ values were measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor. In the first stage surgery, the ISQ values of forty four implants inserted into thirty five patients were measured. In the second stage surgery, the values of fifty implants inserted into thirty seven patients were measured. The values were analyzed to determine the difference between the mean ISQ values of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor. In addition, the correlation between implants used in the first and second stage of surgery with regard to their types and areas of insertion were analyzed. The difference between the ISQ values of 32 implants in each patient during the first and second stage was analyzed. The statistical assessment was carried out using SPSS V. 12.0 for Win. (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to examine the correlation between $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor in the first and second stages of surgery, whereas the difference between their ISQ values was evaluated using a paired t-test. RESULTS. In the first stage, the mean ISQ value for $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor was 70.84 and 75.09, respectively, showing a significant difference (P < .01). In the second stage, the mean ISQ value of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor was 71.76 and 75.94, respectively, also showing a significant difference (P < .01). The difference between the ISQ values in patients in the first and the second stages was significant with both instruments. CONCLUSION. The significant difference in the values obtained using the $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor between the first and second stages of implant surgery indicates that these values can be a convenient and precise way for evaluating the implant stability in clinical practice.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. How the ISQ values measured by $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor are related, and whether the ISQ values acquired from the two machines changes in accordance with changes in implant stability are not yet fully understood. PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to find out correlation between the ISQ values acquired from $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor, and to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and accuracy of two devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS. Sixty two implants were inserted into 47 patients, and their ISQ values were measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor. In the first stage surgery, the ISQ values of forty four implants inserted into thirty five patients were measured. In the second stage surgery, the values of fifty implants inserted into thirty seven patients were measured. The values were analyzed to determine the difference between the mean ISQ values of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor. In addition, the correlation between implants used in the first and second stage of surgery with regard to their types and areas of insertion were analyzed. The difference between the ISQ values of 32 implants in each patient during the first and second stage was analyzed. The statistical assessment was carried out using SPSS V. 12.0 for Win. (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to examine the correlation between $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor in the first and second stages of surgery, whereas the difference between their ISQ values was evaluated using a paired t-test. RESULTS. In the first stage, the mean ISQ value for $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor was 70.84 and 75.09, respectively, showing a significant difference (P < .01). In the second stage, the mean ISQ value of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor was 71.76 and 75.94, respectively, also showing a significant difference (P < .01). The difference between the ISQ values in patients in the first and the second stages was significant with both instruments. CONCLUSION. The significant difference in the values obtained using the $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor between the first and second stages of implant surgery indicates that these values can be a convenient and precise way for evaluating the implant stability in clinical practice.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
제안 방법
Forty four implants from the first stage surgery and 50 from the second stage of surgery were analyzed to determine the difference between the mean ISQ values of OsstellTM and OsstellTM Mentor. In addition, the correlation between implants used in the first and second stage of surgery with regard to their types and areas of insertion were analyzed.
Mentor. In addition, the correlation between implants used in the first and second stage of surgery with regard to their types and areas of insertion were analyzed.
This study examined the correlation between the ISQ values measured by OsstellTM and OsstellTM Mentor as well as the coincidence of the two instruments, and evaluated their utility in practice by investigating the changes in implant stability as a function of time.
With OsstellTM Mentor, a SmartpegTM was connected to the implant in accordance with the diameter, and the measurements were taken from the buccal and mesial sides. Both instruments required three identical values and stored them in the computer.
대상 데이터
Only two-stage implants were used in this study. In the first stage of surgery, 44 implants placed in 35 patients (28 implants in the mandibles and 16 in the maxillas) were measured. In the second stage of surgery, 50 implants were inserted into 37 patients: 36 implants in the mandible and 14 in the maxilla.
In the first stage of surgery, 44 implants placed in 35 patients (28 implants in the mandibles and 16 in the maxillas) were measured. In the second stage of surgery, 50 implants were inserted into 37 patients: 36 implants in the mandible and 14 in the maxilla. Twenty five patients with 32 implants underwent the measurements in both stages.
Sixty two implants inserted into 47 patients who received implant treatment in the Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University were examined. The patients’ age ranged from 23 to 78 years with a mean age of 51.
Thirty implants from ReplaceTM Select Tapered TiUnite, 11 from Brånemark System® MKIII TiUnite, 2 from US II and 1 from Osseotite® were inserted in the first stage of surgery.
In the second stage of surgery, 50 implants were inserted into 37 patients: 36 implants in the mandible and 14 in the maxilla. Twenty five patients with 32 implants underwent the measurements in both stages. Twelve implants in 10 patients were measured in the first stage only, whereas 18 implants in 12 patients were measured in the second stage only (Table I).
데이터처리
The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to examine the correlation between OsstellTM and OsstellTM Mentor in the first and second stages of surgery, whereas the difference between their ISQ values was evaluated using a paired t-test. A paired t-test was used to examine the difference between the ISQ values in each surgery in an identical patient.
, Chicago, IL, USA). The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to examine the correlation between OsstellTM and OsstellTM Mentor in the first and second stages of surgery, whereas the difference between their ISQ values was evaluated using a paired t-test. A paired t-test was used to examine the difference between the ISQ values in each surgery in an identical patient.
성능/효과
MKIII TiUnite. In first and second stages of surgery, OsstellTM Mentor was likely to give 4 -5 higher ISQ values than OsstellTM . With the relatively consistent difference between these two devices, OsstellTM and OsstellTM Mentor are objective and can measure the implant stability confidently.
25, which was statistically significant. Regarding the 50 implants tested during their second stage surgery, the ISQ values for OsstellTM and OsstellTM Mentor showed a mean value of 74.14 and 78.90, respectively. The difference was 4.
The stability of 44 implants were tested, and the results showed that OsstellTM displayed ISQ values ranging from 60 to 83 with an average of 70.84, while those for OsstellTM Mentor ranged from 64 to 88 with a mean value of 75.09. The difference between the two devices was 4.
00, this change was statistically significant. With the OsstellTM mentor, the values ranged from 64 to 85 in the first surgery with an average of 75.44, whereas they ranged from 62 to 88 with an average of 80.06 in the second stage surgery. This difference was statistically significant.
참고문헌 (27)
1 Brånemark P Zarb G Albrektsson T Tissue-integrated prostheses 1985 Chicago Quitessence Publishing 11 43
2 Choi JW Heo SJ Chang IT Koak JY Han JH Kim YS Lee SH Yim SH Resonance frequency analysis of implants with anodized surface oxides J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2004 42 294 300
3 Zarb GA Schmitt A Osseointegration and the edentulous predicament. The 10-year-old Toronto study Br Dent J 1991 170 439 444 2069829
5 Albrektsson T Zarb G Worthington P Eriksson AR The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986 1 11 25 3527955
6 Sennerby L Meredith N Resonance frequency analysis: measuring implant stability and osseointegration Compend Contin Educ Dent 1998 19 493 498 500 502 quiz 504 9693511
7 Johansson CB Albrektsson T A removal torque and histomorphometric study of commercially pure niobium and titanium implants in rabbit bone Clin Oral Implants Res 1991 2 24 29 1807419
8 Wennerberg A Albrektsson T Andersson B Krol JJ A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies Clin Oral Implants Res 1995 6 24 30 7669864
9 Misch CE Contemporary Implant Dentistry 1993 St. Louis CV Mosby 327 354
10 Brånemark PI Zarb G Albrektsson T Tissue-integrated prostheses. osseointegration in clinical dentistry 1985 Chicago Quintessence publishing 199 210
11 Park C Lim JH Cho IH Lim HS A study of the measurement of the implant stability using resonance frequency analysis J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2003 41 181 206
12 Chai JY Yamada J Pang IC In vitro consistency of the Periotest instrument J Prosthodont 1993 2 9 12 8374717
13 Derhami K Wolfaardt JF Faulkner G Grace M Assessment of the periotest device in baseline mobility measurements of craniofacial implants Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995 10 221 229 7744442
14 Meredith N Alleyne D Cawley P Quantitative determination of the stability of the implant-tissue interface using resonance frequency analysis Clin Oral Implants Res 1996 7 261 267 9151590
15 Meredith N Shagaldi F Alleyne D Sennerby L Cawley P The application of resonance frequency measurements to study the stability of titanium implants during healing in the rabbit tibia Clin Oral Implants Res 1997 8 234 243 9586468
16 Glauser R Sennerby L Meredith N Rée A Lundgren A Gottlow J Hämmerle CH Resonance frequency analysis of implants subjected to immediate or early functional occlusal loading. Successful vs. failing implants Clin Oral Implants Res 2004 15 428 434 15248877
17 Adell R Lekholm U Rockler B Brånemark PI A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw Int J Oral Surg 1981 10 387 416 6809663
18 Lekholm U Gunne J Henry P Higuchi K Lindén U Bergström C van Steenberghe D Survival of the Brånemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999 14 639 645 10531735
19 Buser D Mericske-Stern R Bernard JP Behneke A Behneke N Hirt HP Belser UC Lang NP Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants Clin Oral Implants Res 1997 8 161 172 9586460
20 Valderrama P Oates TW Jones AA Simpson J Schoolfield JD Cochran DL Evaluation of two different resonance frequency devices to detect implant stability: a clinical trial J Periodontol 2007 78 262 272 17274715
21 Nkenke E Hahn M Weinzierl K Radespiel-Tröger M Neukam FW Engelke K Implant stability and histomorphometry: a correlation study in human cadavers using stepped cylinder implants Clin Oral Implants Res 2003 14 601 609 12969364
22 Huang HM Pan LC Lee SY Chiu CL Fan KH Ho KN Assessing the implant/bone interface by using natural frequency analysis Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000 90 285 291 10982948
23 Friberg B Sennerby L Meredith N Lekholm U A comparison between cutting torque and resonance frequency measurements of maxillary implants. A 20-month clinical study Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999 28 297 303 10416900
24 Huang HM Chiu CL Yeh CY Lin CT Lin LH Lee SY Early detection of implant healing process using resonance frequency analysis Clin Oral Implants Res 2003 14 437 443 12869006
25 Friberg B Sennerby L Linden B Gröndahl K Lekholm U Stability measurements of one-stage Brånemark implants during healing in mandibles. A clinical resonance frequency analysis study Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999 28 266 272 10416893
26 Meredith N Book K Friberg B Jemt T Sennerby L Resonance frequency measurements of implant stability in vivo . A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of resonance frequency measurements on implants in the edentulous and partially dentate maxilla Clin Oral Implants Res 1997 8 226 233 9586467
27 Rasmusson L Meredith N Sennerby L Measurements of stability changes of titanium implants with exposed threads subjected to barrier membrane induced bone augmentation. An experimental study in the rabbit tibia Clin Oral Implants Res 1997 8 316 322 9586479
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.