A three-year prospective cohort study evaluating implant stability utilising the osstell® and periotest™ devices

ObjectivesTo investigate implant stability measurements from two different devices and at three different time points in order to determine their level of correlation. To also evaluate the influence of a range of clinical characteristics on the values produced by the devices at these three time poin...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ian Reynolds, Lewis Winning, Ioannis Polyzois
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-03-01
Series:Frontiers in Dental Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdmed.2023.1139407/full
_version_ 1797884362560110592
author Ian Reynolds
Lewis Winning
Ioannis Polyzois
author_facet Ian Reynolds
Lewis Winning
Ioannis Polyzois
author_sort Ian Reynolds
collection DOAJ
description ObjectivesTo investigate implant stability measurements from two different devices and at three different time points in order to determine their level of correlation. To also evaluate the influence of a range of clinical characteristics on the values produced by the devices at these three time points.Materials & MethodsMeasurements were recorded at implant placement (T1), implant exposure (T2) and at 3 years from implant placement (T3). A range of clinical data was collected including patient demographics and site characteristics. Stability measurements and clinical characteristics were recorded for 29 patients and 68 dental implants at T1, subsequent stability measurements were recorded for 67 implants at T2 and 58 implants at T3. Correlation testing between the Osstell® and Periotest™ devices was carried out utilising Spearman's rank correlation for each time point. Analysis of the difference between clinical factors and stability measurements was compared using Krushal-Wallis test for each variable and time point.ResultsA single dental implant failed shortly after 2nd stage surgery for an overall survival rate of 98% during the study timeline. The median ISQ value was 73.25 (IQR 67–75) at T1 and 74 (IQR 70.5–77) at T3. The median Periotest value was −4 (IQR −6, −2) at T1 and −6 (IQR −7, −5) at T3. The range of ISQ values observed was 50 (39–89) ISQ at T1 and decreased to 21 (61–82) ISQ at T3. The Periotest values ranged from 37 (29 to −8) at T1 and decreased to 6 (−2 to −8) at T3. A weak to moderate correlation was observed between mean ISQ and Periotest values across time-points T1, T2 and T3, (r = −0.26, p = 0.05), (r = −0.35, p < 0.01) and (r = −0.28, p = 0.04) respectively.ConclusionsBased on the results of this study there was a weak to moderate level of correlation between values recorded between the two measurement devices at implant placement, implant exposure and three years following placement. For both the Osstell® and Periotest™ a narrowing of the range of stability values was observed from T1 to T3. In general, Periotest™ seemed to be more sensitive in highlighting differences in measurements affected by local conditions.
first_indexed 2024-04-10T04:06:08Z
format Article
id doaj.art-a98de79179564e3ca7a94bc7b70c649d
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2673-4915
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-10T04:06:08Z
publishDate 2023-03-01
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format Article
series Frontiers in Dental Medicine
spelling doaj.art-a98de79179564e3ca7a94bc7b70c649d2023-03-13T05:57:15ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Dental Medicine2673-49152023-03-01410.3389/fdmed.2023.11394071139407A three-year prospective cohort study evaluating implant stability utilising the osstell® and periotest™ devicesIan ReynoldsLewis WinningIoannis PolyzoisObjectivesTo investigate implant stability measurements from two different devices and at three different time points in order to determine their level of correlation. To also evaluate the influence of a range of clinical characteristics on the values produced by the devices at these three time points.Materials & MethodsMeasurements were recorded at implant placement (T1), implant exposure (T2) and at 3 years from implant placement (T3). A range of clinical data was collected including patient demographics and site characteristics. Stability measurements and clinical characteristics were recorded for 29 patients and 68 dental implants at T1, subsequent stability measurements were recorded for 67 implants at T2 and 58 implants at T3. Correlation testing between the Osstell® and Periotest™ devices was carried out utilising Spearman's rank correlation for each time point. Analysis of the difference between clinical factors and stability measurements was compared using Krushal-Wallis test for each variable and time point.ResultsA single dental implant failed shortly after 2nd stage surgery for an overall survival rate of 98% during the study timeline. The median ISQ value was 73.25 (IQR 67–75) at T1 and 74 (IQR 70.5–77) at T3. The median Periotest value was −4 (IQR −6, −2) at T1 and −6 (IQR −7, −5) at T3. The range of ISQ values observed was 50 (39–89) ISQ at T1 and decreased to 21 (61–82) ISQ at T3. The Periotest values ranged from 37 (29 to −8) at T1 and decreased to 6 (−2 to −8) at T3. A weak to moderate correlation was observed between mean ISQ and Periotest values across time-points T1, T2 and T3, (r = −0.26, p = 0.05), (r = −0.35, p < 0.01) and (r = −0.28, p = 0.04) respectively.ConclusionsBased on the results of this study there was a weak to moderate level of correlation between values recorded between the two measurement devices at implant placement, implant exposure and three years following placement. For both the Osstell® and Periotest™ a narrowing of the range of stability values was observed from T1 to T3. In general, Periotest™ seemed to be more sensitive in highlighting differences in measurements affected by local conditions.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdmed.2023.1139407/fullimplant stability measurement using two devicesosseointegrationimplant stabilityboneresonance frequency analysisdamping capacity assessment
spellingShingle Ian Reynolds
Lewis Winning
Ioannis Polyzois
A three-year prospective cohort study evaluating implant stability utilising the osstell® and periotest™ devices
Frontiers in Dental Medicine
implant stability measurement using two devices
osseointegration
implant stability
bone
resonance frequency analysis
damping capacity assessment
title A three-year prospective cohort study evaluating implant stability utilising the osstell® and periotest™ devices
title_full A three-year prospective cohort study evaluating implant stability utilising the osstell® and periotest™ devices
title_fullStr A three-year prospective cohort study evaluating implant stability utilising the osstell® and periotest™ devices
title_full_unstemmed A three-year prospective cohort study evaluating implant stability utilising the osstell® and periotest™ devices
title_short A three-year prospective cohort study evaluating implant stability utilising the osstell® and periotest™ devices
title_sort three year prospective cohort study evaluating implant stability utilising the osstell r and periotest™ devices
topic implant stability measurement using two devices
osseointegration
implant stability
bone
resonance frequency analysis
damping capacity assessment
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdmed.2023.1139407/full
work_keys_str_mv AT ianreynolds athreeyearprospectivecohortstudyevaluatingimplantstabilityutilisingtheosstellandperiotestdevices
AT lewiswinning athreeyearprospectivecohortstudyevaluatingimplantstabilityutilisingtheosstellandperiotestdevices
AT ioannispolyzois athreeyearprospectivecohortstudyevaluatingimplantstabilityutilisingtheosstellandperiotestdevices
AT ianreynolds threeyearprospectivecohortstudyevaluatingimplantstabilityutilisingtheosstellandperiotestdevices
AT lewiswinning threeyearprospectivecohortstudyevaluatingimplantstabilityutilisingtheosstellandperiotestdevices
AT ioannispolyzois threeyearprospectivecohortstudyevaluatingimplantstabilityutilisingtheosstellandperiotestdevices