• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• 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.

• 구강회복응용과학지
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.327-336
• /
• 2007

Fixture의 안정도를 평가하는 장비인 Osstell Mentor와 기존 Osstell과의 비교 시험 및 측정환경에 따른 노이즈 발생 시험 결과를 통해 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다. 1. US II Fixture와 SS II Fixture의 ISQ 값을 측정한 1차 검증에서는 Osstell과 Osstell Mentor의 ISQ 값 경향의 차이가 크게 나타나지 않음을 확인하였다. 2. SS II Fixture를 얕게 매식한 것과 정상적인 매식한 것의 ISQ 값 비교를 한 2차 검증에서는, Osstell과 Osstell Mentor 모두 매식 깊이에 따른 동일한 경향의 결과를 보였다. 3. 3차 검증에서는 골질별로 Osstell과 Osstell Mentor의 ISQ 값이 일정한 경향을 보이는 것을 확인하였고, 특히 Osstell Mentor 장비는 Osstell 장비보다 사용함에 있어서 편리성이 뛰어나다고 판단된다. 또한 ISQ 값을 100% 신뢰하기는 어렵지만 Osstell Mentor를 임상 및 실험에 적용하는데 있어서는 문제가 없을 것으로 판단된다. 4. 측정환경에 따라 전자파를 발생시키는 환경이 존재하면 노이즈가 발생할 수 있으나, 실제 측정결과 휴대폰이 작동 중인 환경을 제외하고는 노이즈가 발생하지 않았다. 실제 치과 내에서의 사용에서도 노이즈는 발생하지 않음을 확인하였다. 5. 비교적 안전하게 장치를 장착 및 탈착 할 수 있어 측정과정에 의해 발생되는 임플란트와 주위골에 대한 잠재적 위험도가 낮고 측정위치에 따른 오차가 적어 임상적으로 불리한 상황과 다양한 환경에서의 임플란트 안정성 측정이 가능해 임상적 활용도가 높다고 판단된다.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• 제34권2호
• /
• 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.