Gul Buyukguclu1, Zeynep Ozkurt-Kayahan2, Ender Kazazoglu3. 1. Private Practice, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Professor, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability of the Osstell implant stability quotient (ISQ) and Penguin resonance frequency analysis (RFA) devices in measuring implant stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty implants were embedded in self-curing acrylic resin, soft-lining material, polyvinyl siloxane impression material, and polycarboxylate cement (n = 10). After the initial setting times were completed, the stability of each implant was measured with Osstell ISQ and Penguin RFA with 3 repeated measurements. The "intraclass correlation coefficient" evaluated the correspondence between the measurements (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Polyvinyl siloxane impression material had lower ISQ values than soft-lining material, self-curing acrylic resin, and polycarboxylate cement in both devices (P < 0.05). The intraclass correlation was 1.00 in self-curing acrylic resin and 0.48 in polycarboxylate cement (P < 0.05) for Osstell. This value was 0.95 in self-curing acrylic resin and 0.38 in polycarboxylate cement (P < 0.05) for Penguin. There was no correlation between the repeated measurements in soft-lining material and polyvinyl siloxane impression material for both devices (P > 0.05). The repeatability was 0.90 for Osstell and 0.60 for Penguin (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Osstell ISQ and Penguin RFA are reliable only when the implants are embedded in stiff materials. Osstell ISQ is more reliable than Penguin RFA.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability of the Osstell implant stability quotient (ISQ) and Penguin resonance frequency analysis (RFA) devices in measuring implant stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty implants were embedded in self-curing acrylic resin, soft-lining material, polyvinyl siloxane impression material, and polycarboxylate cement (n = 10). After the initial setting times were completed, the stability of each implant was measured with Osstell ISQ and Penguin RFA with 3 repeated measurements. The "intraclass correlation coefficient" evaluated the correspondence between the measurements (P < 0.05). RESULTS:Polyvinyl siloxane impression material had lower ISQ values than soft-lining material, self-curing acrylic resin, and polycarboxylate cement in both devices (P < 0.05). The intraclass correlation was 1.00 in self-curing acrylic resin and 0.48 in polycarboxylate cement (P < 0.05) for Osstell. This value was 0.95 in self-curing acrylic resin and 0.38 in polycarboxylate cement (P < 0.05) for Penguin. There was no correlation between the repeated measurements in soft-lining material and polyvinyl siloxane impression material for both devices (P > 0.05). The repeatability was 0.90 for Osstell and 0.60 for Penguin (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Osstell ISQ and Penguin RFA are reliable only when the implants are embedded in stiff materials. Osstell ISQ is more reliable than Penguin RFA.