• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.327-336
• /
• 2007

Purpose This study was planned to compare and evaluate the stability of implant using $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$. Material and methods Artificial bone and RBM(resorbable blasting media) surface blasted implants(Osstem US II, SS II implants - diameter: 4mm, length: 13mm) were used. To measure the stability of installed implants, $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$ were used. In the first experiment, five implants were installed in D1(external type implants) and D3(internal type implants). In the second experiment, 4 internal type implants were divided in two groups and installed in D1 artificial bone with different depth. In the third experiment, two external implants were installed in D1 and D3 artificial bone each and two internal implants were installed in D1 and D3 artificial bone. In all groups, their stability were measured by $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$. Results In all groups, $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$ both showed reliable measurement values. The value difference between $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$ was observed but the difference was small and clinically acceptable. Conclusion These results suggest that the use of Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$ has clinical relevance in the assessment of implant stability.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.1 no.3
• /
• pp.124-128
• /
• 2009

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. How the ISQ values measured by $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor are related, and whether the ISQ values acquired from the two machines changes in accordance with changes in implant stability are not yet fully understood. PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to find out correlation between the ISQ values acquired from $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor, and to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and accuracy of two devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS. Sixty two implants were inserted into 47 patients, and their ISQ values were measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor. In the first stage surgery, the ISQ values of forty four implants inserted into thirty five patients were measured. In the second stage surgery, the values of fifty implants inserted into thirty seven patients were measured. The values were analyzed to determine the difference between the mean ISQ values of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor. In addition, the correlation between implants used in the first and second stage of surgery with regard to their types and areas of insertion were analyzed. The difference between the ISQ values of 32 implants in each patient during the first and second stage was analyzed. The statistical assessment was carried out using SPSS V. 12.0 for Win. (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to examine the correlation between $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor in the first and second stages of surgery, whereas the difference between their ISQ values was evaluated using a paired t-test. RESULTS. In the first stage, the mean ISQ value for $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor was 70.84 and 75.09, respectively, showing a significant difference (P < .01). In the second stage, the mean ISQ value of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor was 71.76 and 75.94, respectively, also showing a significant difference (P < .01). The difference between the ISQ values in patients in the first and the second stages was significant with both instruments. CONCLUSION. The significant difference in the values obtained using the $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$ Mentor between the first and second stages of implant surgery indicates that these values can be a convenient and precise way for evaluating the implant stability in clinical practice.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.205-211
• /
• 2001

The aim of this investigation was to evaluate successfully functioning implants stability in the partially edentulous mandibular molar sites by resonance frequency measurements. Resonance frequency measurement is more objective and clinically non-invasive method than any other methods had been used. In this study, $Osstell^{TM}$ (Integration Diagnostics, Sweden) was used. 15 patients ( 7 males, 8 females ) were received each 2 implants in their mandibular unilaterally partial edentulous molar sites. Total 30 implants were installed, 28 implants were $Br{\aa}nemark^{(R)}$ self-tapping fixtures(MK II, Nobel Biocare, Sweden) and 2 were $3i^{(R)}$(USA) self-tapping fixtures. Minimum of functional loading durations was 12 months and there were no significant marginal bone resorptions and peri-implant problems. From this test, the following results were drawn: 1. Mean ISQ values of implants in the first and second mandibular molar area were $73.66{\pm}4.45$, $71.93{\pm}3.41$, respectively. There was no significant difference between two groups(p>0.05). Also mean ISQ value of total sum was 72.8. 2. Mean ISQ values of implants in males and females group were $71.64{\pm}4.06$, $73.81{\pm}3.76$, respectively. And there was no significant difference between two group(p>0.05). 3. Correlation between implant lengths and ISQ values was weak(r=0.128).

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.180-186
• /
• 2008

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the effect of the implant recipient site preparation methods on primary stability of implants with the instruments of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ in the iliac bone of cadaver. Methods and materials: The 8 iliac bones in 4 cadavers and implants treated with resorbable blasting media (RBM) were used. $Periotest^{(R)}$ (Simens AG, Germany) and $Osstell^{TM}$ (Model 6 Resonance Frequency Analyser: Integration Diagnostics Ltd., Sweden) were used to measure primary stability of implants. Implants were inserted into the iliac crest of the cadaver. In control group, the recipient site was prepared according to the manufacturer's recommendation: 1.8 mm guide drill, 2.0 mm initial drill, 2.7 mm pilot drill, 2.7 mm twist drill, 3.0 mm twist drill, 3.3 mm pilot drill, 3.3 mm twist drill, and 3.3 mm countersink drill as well as tapping drill were used in order. In the group 1, implant recipient sites were prepared by sequentially drilling from 1.8 mm guide drill to 3.0 mm twist drill and then inserted implants without countersinking and tapping. In the group 2, implant recipient sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill and then inserted implants without tapping. In the group 3, the sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill as well as tapping drill. In the group 4, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill. In the group 5, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill and countersink drill. A total of 60 implants were placed (n=10). The stability was measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ mesiodistally and buccolingually. To compare the mean stability of each group statistically, One-way ANOVA was used and correlation of instrument were analyzed using SPSS 12.0. The results obtained were as follows; 1. The stability of group 1 measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ buccolingually showed the highest, and there are significant difference statistically between control group and experimental group 1,2,4 in each instruments respectively (p<0.05). 2. The stability of group 1 measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ mesiodistally showed the highest. There are significant difference statistically between control group and all experimental groups in $Osstell^{TM}$, and between control group and experimental group 1,2,3,4 (p<0.05). 3. There are high correlation between the measurements of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ (p<0.05). Conclusion: These results indicate that the primary stability of implant can be obtained by the recipient sites preparation with smaller diameter drill than that of implant or minimal drilling.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.42-52
• /
• 2008

Purpose: Resonance Frequency Analysis(RFA) technique can be used as an effective method in measuring the implant stability and documenting the clinical results. This technique also determines how stable the implant is before performing a prosthetic practice. Having become one the guidelines of the implant therapy whose final objective is the immediate loading, the $Osstell^{TM}$ mentor is giving a lot of information to the clinicians recently. In this communication, experiments were performed to investigate how reliable the measured ISQ values by $Osstell^{TM}$ mentor are, and to see if those are also stable even after sterilization. As five objectives: 1) How stable measured ISQ values after fixation $Smartpeg^{TM}s$ for 400 times. 2) How stable measured ISQ values after 'attach-detach'$Smartpeg^{TM}'s$ for 400 times. 3) How stable measured ISQ values after clinical sterilization methods. 4) How stable measured ISQ values after repeatedly sterilization in autoclave for 10 times. 5) What is the critical temperature which is lost the magnetism of $Smartpeg^{TM}$. Materials and Methods: Clinical sterilization methods(Autoclave sterilization, Dentistar sterilization, Ultra violet sterilization, Vacuum dry unit sterilization, Boiling water sterilization, combined $H_{2}O_{2}$ and Alcohol sterilization).$Smartpeg^{TM}s$. D3 Block bone($3{\times}9{\times}2cm$). Osstem implant(${\emptyset}4.1$-10mm).$Osstell^{TM}$ mentor. Individual experiment was used 8 number of $Smartpeg^{TM}s$ and they had measured to ISQ values of before experiment and after experiment. Results: 1. The measured ISQ values did not change after fixation $Smartpeg^{TM}s$ for 400 times. 2. There was no significant changes in the measured ISQ values of 'attach-detach $Smartpeg^{TM}s'$ for 400 times. 3. The measured ISQ values did not change after the usual clinical sterilization methods. 4. The measured ISQ values did not change after sterilization in autoclave for 10 times. 5. It was impossible to exactly measure the critical temperature which is lost the magnetism of $Smartpeg^{TM}s$. But, the results was resulted to lost its magnetism in higher temperature than $150^{\circ}C$/10 minute. Conclusion: The measured ISQ values showed insignificant differences in case of no changes in the magnetism of the $Smartpeg^{TM}s$. It seems that the $Smartpeg^{TM}s$ can be used repeatedly in every measurement if the original magnetisms of the $Smartpeg^{TM}s$ can be recognized. There seems to be no significant changes in the measured ISQ values of 'attach-detach $Smartpeg^{TM}s'$ only if the screw pitches were unimpaired. The clinical sterilization methods seems acceptable because the result was resulted to lost its magnetism in higher temperature than $150^{\circ}C$/10minute.

• 대한치과보철학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2004.11a
• /
• pp.53-53
• /
• 2004

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.126-135
• /
• 2023

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of implant stability measuring devices depending on the location of the implant and the position of the patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Six implants were installed in different dentate sextants of six artificial bone models. Implant stability was measured in three conditions of the bone model (without mounting on a phantom head, mounted on a phantom head in supine position, and mounted on a phantom head in upright position). A resonance frequency analysis device (Osstell) and two damping capacity analysis devices (Periotest and Anycheck) were used to measure implant stability. The values measured outside the phantom head were treated as controls, and the values inside the phantom head were compared using an independent t-test. RESULTS. Osstell showed different results in two of the six divisions in both the supine and upright positions compared to outside of the mouth (P < .05). Periotest showed different results in all six parts in the supine position and in five parts in the upright position compared to outside of the mouth (P < .05). While Anycheck showed different results in five areas in the supine position compared to outside of the mouth, it showed different results in only one area in the upright position (P < .05). CONCLUSION. In the difficult implant position for the operator to access, the implant stability measuring devices show less reliability. The accessibility of implant is greatly affected in the order of Osstell, Anycheck, and Periotest.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.301-308
• /
• 2007

Purpose: This study was performed to compare and evaluate the effect of recipient site depths and diameters of the drills on the primary stability of implant in pig's ribs. Materials and methods: An intact pig's rib larger than 8 mm in width and 20 mm in height; RBM(resorbable blasting media) surface blasted ${\phi}3.75mm$ and 8.0 mm long USII Osstem Implants (Osstem Co., Korea) were used. To measure the primary stability, $Periotest^{(R)}$ (Simens AG, Germany) and $Osstell^{TM}$ (Model 6 Resonance Frequency Analyser: Integration Diagnostics Ltd., Sweden) were used. They were divided into 6 groups according to its recipient site formation method: D3H3, D3H5, D3H7, D3.3H3, D3.3H5, D3.3H7. Each group had, as indicated, 10 implants placed, and total 60 implants were used. The mean value was obtained by 4-time measurements each on mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual side perpendicular to the long axis of the implant using $Periotest^{(R)}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$. For statistical analysis one-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean value of each group, and the correlation between placement depths and the primary stability, and that of measuring instruments was analyzed using SPSS 12.0. Results: The primary stability of the implants increased as the placement depths increased (p<0.05), and showed a proportional relationship (p<0.01). The primary stability increased when the diameter of the recipient site was smaller than that of the implant but with no statistical significance. There was a strong correlation between $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ (p<0.01). Conclusion: These results suggest that increasing the placement depth of implants enhances the primary stability of implant.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.337-358
• /
• 2007

Purpose This study was performed to evaluate the stability of dual thread implant using resonance frequency analysis in human. Materials and methods Fifty-five patients(32 males and 23 females) with a mean age of 50 years and 1 month who were treated during March, 2005 to July, 2007 in Pusan National University hospital. Totally 145 dual thread Implants were installed and initial stability was measured by Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$. After 3-6 Months, secondary stability was measured at the time of second surgery or before prosthetic treatment. Results At the time of 1st surgery, average ISQ value was $75.12{\pm}12.06$. Only 1 implant was failed during the healing period. Before prosthetic treatment, ISQ values were measured and its mean value was $80.94{\pm}6.12$. Conclusion These results suggest that the increased stability of the implant verifies the clinical relevance of double thread implant.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.50 no.3
• /
• pp.176-183
• /
• 2012

Purpose: This study examined the clinical success rate of Mg titanate implants (M Implant system, Shinhung, Korea), which employ a Mg coating method, by evaluating the marginal bone loss and implant stability using radiographs and Osstell$^{(R)}$, over a 1 year. Materials and methods: The locations of the implants placement were divided into 4 areas; the maxillary and mandibular premolars and molars. In the maxilla, 8 and 9 implants were inserted in the premolar and molar areas, respectively. In the mandible, 11 and 51 implants were inserted in the premolar and molar areas. Marginal bone loss and ISQ of all implants (79) were measured after insertion, mounting the prosthetic appliance, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after loading. The marginal bone loss was measured from the radiograph using XCP bite, which was customized, and the implant stability measured using Osstell$^{(R)}$. Fisher's exact test (${\alpha}$=.05) was used to compare the success rates of each region. Results: The mean marginal bone loss for the upper and lower jaws were 1.537 mm and 1.172 mm. The mobility showed a non-significant reduction or increase according with time. The success rates were accounted for 94.12% and 98.39% in the upper and lower jaws; the premolars and molars were accounted for 100% and 96.67%. The two cases of early failure resulted from failure of primary stability during implant insertion. The late failures were not observed for 1 year after adding a loading to the implants. Conclusion: The Mg titanate implant showed good primary stability and good clinical results in both healing and function.