R Jaramillo1, R Santos, P Lázaro, M Romero, J V Rios-Santos, P Bullón, A Fernández-Palacín, M Herrero-Climent. 1. *Associate Professor, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Seville, Spain; Lecturer, Department of Periodontology and Implants, University of Seville, Seville, Spain. †Lecturer, Master's Degree, Periodontology and Implants, University of Seville; Private Practice, Periodontal and Dental Implants, Madrid, Spain. ‡Lecturer, Master's Degree, Periodontology and Implants, University of Seville; Private Practice, Dental Implant and Oral Surgery, Cádiz, Spain. §Lecturer, Department of Dentistry, University of Seville, Seville, Spain; Lecturer, Department of Periodontology and Implants, University of Seville, Seville, Spain. ‖Full Professor, Department of Dentistry, University of Seville; Lecturer, Master's Degree, Periodontology and Implants, University of Seville; Dean of the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Seville, Seville, Spain. ¶Full-time Lecturer, Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Seville; Lecturer, Master's Degree, Applied Biostatistics for the Health Sciences, University of Seville, Seville, Spain. #Lecturer, Master's Degree, Periodontology and Implants, University of Seville; Private Practice, Periodontal and Dental Implant, Málaga, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Comparing reliability of Osstell Mentor and Osstell ISQ in implant stability measurement, and assessing whether their measurements are comparable. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Implant stability was measured with both devices on 58 implants in 15 patients. Six measurements were completed with each device with 2 different transducers (3 measurements with each transducer), that is, 12 measurements for each implant. RESULTS: Mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) value with Osstell ISQ was 72.59, 72.47, and 73.17 in the first measurements, respectively. With Osstell Mentor, the results were 72.43, 72.60, and 73.26, respectively; mean ranges were 3.37, 3.60, and 3.75, respectively. However, mean value with Osstell ISQ and Osstell Mentor was 72.87 and 72.04, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.98. This means an almost perfect degree of concordance between both devices. CONCLUSIONS: Resonance frequency analysis systems in Osstell Mentor and Osstell ISQ show almost perfect reproducibility and repeatability.
OBJECTIVE: Comparing reliability of Osstell Mentor and Osstell ISQ in implant stability measurement, and assessing whether their measurements are comparable. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Implant stability was measured with both devices on 58 implants in 15 patients. Six measurements were completed with each device with 2 different transducers (3 measurements with each transducer), that is, 12 measurements for each implant. RESULTS: Mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) value with Osstell ISQ was 72.59, 72.47, and 73.17 in the first measurements, respectively. With Osstell Mentor, the results were 72.43, 72.60, and 73.26, respectively; mean ranges were 3.37, 3.60, and 3.75, respectively. However, mean value with Osstell ISQ and Osstell Mentor was 72.87 and 72.04, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.98. This means an almost perfect degree of concordance between both devices. CONCLUSIONS: Resonance frequency analysis systems in Osstell Mentor and Osstell ISQ show almost perfect reproducibility and repeatability.
Authors: M-C Díaz-Castro; A Falcao; P López-Jarana; C Falcao; J-V Ríos-Santos; A Fernández-Palacín; M Herrero-Climent Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2019-09-01
Authors: Bernardo Ferreira Lemos; Paula Lopez-Jarana; Carlos Falcao; Blanca Ríos-Carrasco; Javier Gil; José Vicente Ríos-Santos; Mariano Herrero-Climent Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: María Guerrero-González; Francesca Monticelli; David Saura García-Martín; Mariano Herrero-Climent; Blanca Ríos-Carrasco; José-Vicente Ríos-Santos; Ana Fernández-Palacín Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 3.390