A comparative study on the accuracy of the devices for measuring the implant stability.
10.4047/jap.2009.1.3.124
- Author:
In Ho CHO
;
Young Il LEE
;
Young Mi KIM
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Osstell;
Osstell Mentor;
ISQ;
RFA;
Stability
- MeSH:
Chicago;
Humans;
Mentors
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
2009;1(3):124-128
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
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.
