PURPOSE: Two noninvasive methods to measure dental implant stability are damping capacity assessment (Periotest) and resonance frequency analysis (Osstell). The objective of the present study was to assess the correlation of these 2 techniques in clinical use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implant stability of 213 clinically stable loaded and unloaded 1-stage implants in 65 patients was measured in triplicate by means of resonance frequency analysis and Periotest. Descriptive statistics as well as Pearson's, Spearman's, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated with SPSS 11.0.2. RESULTS: The mean values were 57.66 +/- 8.19 implant stability quotient for the resonance frequency analysis and -5.08 +/- 2.02 for the Periotest. The correlation of both measuring techniques was -0.64 (Pearson) and -0.65 (Spearman). The single-measure intraclass correlation coefficients for the ISQ and Periotest values were 0.99 and 0.88, respectively (95% CI). No significant correlation of implant length with either resonance frequency analysis or Periotest could be found. However, a significant correlation of implant diameter with both techniques was found (P < .005). The correlation of both measuring systems is moderate to good. It seems that the Periotest is more susceptible to clinical measurement variables than the Osstell device. The intraclass correlation indicated lower measurement precision for the Periotest technique. Additionally, the Periotest values differed more from the normal (Gaussian) curve of distribution than the ISQs. Both measurement techniques show a significant correlation to the implant diameter. CONCLUSION: Resonance frequency analysis appeared to be the more precise technique.
PURPOSE: Two noninvasive methods to measure dental implant stability are damping capacity assessment (Periotest) and resonance frequency analysis (Osstell). The objective of the present study was to assess the correlation of these 2 techniques in clinical use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implant stability of 213 clinically stable loaded and unloaded 1-stage implants in 65 patients was measured in triplicate by means of resonance frequency analysis and Periotest. Descriptive statistics as well as Pearson's, Spearman's, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated with SPSS 11.0.2. RESULTS: The mean values were 57.66 +/- 8.19 implant stability quotient for the resonance frequency analysis and -5.08 +/- 2.02 for the Periotest. The correlation of both measuring techniques was -0.64 (Pearson) and -0.65 (Spearman). The single-measure intraclass correlation coefficients for the ISQ and Periotest values were 0.99 and 0.88, respectively (95% CI). No significant correlation of implant length with either resonance frequency analysis or Periotest could be found. However, a significant correlation of implant diameter with both techniques was found (P < .005). The correlation of both measuring systems is moderate to good. It seems that the Periotest is more susceptible to clinical measurement variables than the Osstell device. The intraclass correlation indicated lower measurement precision for the Periotest technique. Additionally, the Periotest values differed more from the normal (Gaussian) curve of distribution than the ISQs. Both measurement techniques show a significant correlation to the implant diameter. CONCLUSION: Resonance frequency analysis appeared to be the more precise technique.
Authors: Yun-Chi Wang; Joseph Y K Kan; Kitichai Rungcharassaeng; Phillip Roe; Jaime L Lozada Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 5.977