J Adv Prosthodont.  2023 Jun;15(3):126-135. 10.4047/jap.2023.15.3.126.

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

• Lee HN
• Kim MS
• Lee JY
• Zihan X
• Ryu JJ
• Shim JS

• KMID: 2544054
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2023.15.3.126

Abstract

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. [J Adv Prosthodont 2023;15:126-35]

Keyword

Implant stability; Resonance frequency analysis; Damping capacity analysis; Osseointegration