PURPOSE: A novel diagnostic device (BoneProbe) for evaluating alveolar bone quality during dental implant surgery has recently been developed. The underlying measurement principle is based on a compressive test of bone, which may subsequently affect bone healing and osseointegration of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six implant sites each were created in the rear left tibia of four sheep and used for bone quality testing with the BoneProbe, while empty osteotomies and implants placed without testing served as controls. Maximum insertion torque and primary implant stability (Osstell) were determined additionally. After 5 and 20 weeks, the animals were sacrificed followed by histomorphometric and microradiographic analysis quantifying bone implant contact (BIC) and bone mineral density (BMD) as parameters. Statistical analysis was conducted applying one-sample t tests, two-sample t tests and Pearson correlation coefficients (α = .05). RESULTS: Implants placed following application of the BoneProbe differed from the control treatments only in one case, where BIC was greater (P = .02) at the control implant after 20 weeks of healing. With the exception of the combinations of Osstell/BoneProbe measurement in trabecular bone (0.29) and Osstell/insertion torque (0.34), good correlations of all clinically conducted measurements were found. CONCLUSION: Based on the results obtained, it appears that intraoperative testing of bone quality applying the BoneProbe does not jeopardize bone healing and osseointegration of dental implants.
PURPOSE: A novel diagnostic device (BoneProbe) for evaluating alveolar bone quality during dental implant surgery has recently been developed. The underlying measurement principle is based on a compressive test of bone, which may subsequently affect bone healing and osseointegration of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six implant sites each were created in the rear left tibia of four sheep and used for bone quality testing with the BoneProbe, while empty osteotomies and implants placed without testing served as controls. Maximum insertion torque and primary implant stability (Osstell) were determined additionally. After 5 and 20 weeks, the animals were sacrificed followed by histomorphometric and microradiographic analysis quantifying bone implant contact (BIC) and bone mineral density (BMD) as parameters. Statistical analysis was conducted applying one-sample t tests, two-sample t tests and Pearson correlation coefficients (α = .05). RESULTS: Implants placed following application of the BoneProbe differed from the control treatments only in one case, where BIC was greater (P = .02) at the control implant after 20 weeks of healing. With the exception of the combinations of Osstell/BoneProbe measurement in trabecular bone (0.29) and Osstell/insertion torque (0.34), good correlations of all clinically conducted measurements were found. CONCLUSION: Based on the results obtained, it appears that intraoperative testing of bone quality applying the BoneProbe does not jeopardize bone healing and osseointegration of dental implants.