ISQ for Assessing Implant Stability and Monitoring Healing: A Prospective Observational Comparison between Two Devices

IF 2.9
Giueseppe Bavetta, Carlo Paderni, Giorgio Bavetta, Valentina Randazzo, Alessio Cavataio, Francesco Seidita, Ahmad G. A. Khater, S. Gehrke, Sergio Rexhep Tari, A. Scarano
{"title":"ISQ for Assessing Implant Stability and Monitoring Healing: A Prospective Observational Comparison between Two Devices","authors":"Giueseppe Bavetta, Carlo Paderni, Giorgio Bavetta, Valentina Randazzo, Alessio Cavataio, Francesco Seidita, Ahmad G. A. Khater, S. Gehrke, Sergio Rexhep Tari, A. Scarano","doi":"10.3390/prosthesis6020027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: With the growing use of dental implants, there is an urgent need to determine a prosthetic placement protocol by assessing implant stability and monitoring healing. Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) values are produced using dental non-invasive devices through resonance frequency analysis, considered as indicators for measuring primary stability (i.e., at implant placement), monitoring biological stability (osseointegration), and prosthetic loading. A systematic and detailed comparison of ISQ measurement devices, for a given patient population, is lacking in the literature. This aspect is the subject of the present work, with the devices being two that are widely used in clinical practice (Osstell® and Osseo®100). The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of ISQ measurement using two standard devices most commonly used in clinical practice and to highlight any differences when comparing measurements at undefined time intervals. Methods: We enrolled 50 patients (16 males and 34 females) with a mean age of 55.4 years, who indicated dental implant placement and met the inclusion criteria. The sample was divided into two equal groups based on bone density: A (D1–D2 bone density) and B (D3–D4 bone density); each had 25 patients with 40 implants. ISQ was measured using two devices: Osstell® and Osseo 100®, at different time points (A: three and B: four follow-ups). Results: All enrolled patients completed the study without adverse events; all implants placed were successful, with no implant failure. In each of the study groups, ISQ values increased gradually with increasing follow-up time, and there was no significant difference between Osstell and Osseo 100 values at follow-up times except for the T1 follow-up in group A. Temporal comparisons for the two devices revealed significant differences in T0 vs. T2 in group A, whereas significant differences existed in T0 vs. T1, T2, and T3 in group B. Our findings indicated that the overall effect significantly depended on bone density rather than on the device used to measure ISQ. Conclusion: Regardless of the devices used, the ISQ measurement effectively monitors healing after implant insertion and allows prosthetic load to be modulated according to the ISQ value, especially when prosthetizing implants placed in fine trabecular bone (D4 or regenerated bone).","PeriodicalId":474580,"journal":{"name":"Prosthesis","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prosthesis","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis6020027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: With the growing use of dental implants, there is an urgent need to determine a prosthetic placement protocol by assessing implant stability and monitoring healing. Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) values are produced using dental non-invasive devices through resonance frequency analysis, considered as indicators for measuring primary stability (i.e., at implant placement), monitoring biological stability (osseointegration), and prosthetic loading. A systematic and detailed comparison of ISQ measurement devices, for a given patient population, is lacking in the literature. This aspect is the subject of the present work, with the devices being two that are widely used in clinical practice (Osstell® and Osseo®100). The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of ISQ measurement using two standard devices most commonly used in clinical practice and to highlight any differences when comparing measurements at undefined time intervals. Methods: We enrolled 50 patients (16 males and 34 females) with a mean age of 55.4 years, who indicated dental implant placement and met the inclusion criteria. The sample was divided into two equal groups based on bone density: A (D1–D2 bone density) and B (D3–D4 bone density); each had 25 patients with 40 implants. ISQ was measured using two devices: Osstell® and Osseo 100®, at different time points (A: three and B: four follow-ups). Results: All enrolled patients completed the study without adverse events; all implants placed were successful, with no implant failure. In each of the study groups, ISQ values increased gradually with increasing follow-up time, and there was no significant difference between Osstell and Osseo 100 values at follow-up times except for the T1 follow-up in group A. Temporal comparisons for the two devices revealed significant differences in T0 vs. T2 in group A, whereas significant differences existed in T0 vs. T1, T2, and T3 in group B. Our findings indicated that the overall effect significantly depended on bone density rather than on the device used to measure ISQ. Conclusion: Regardless of the devices used, the ISQ measurement effectively monitors healing after implant insertion and allows prosthetic load to be modulated according to the ISQ value, especially when prosthetizing implants placed in fine trabecular bone (D4 or regenerated bone).
用于评估种植体稳定性和监测愈合的 ISQ:两种设备的前瞻性观察比较
背景:随着牙科种植体的使用日益增多,迫切需要通过评估种植体稳定性和监测愈合情况来确定修复体植入方案。种植体稳定性商数(ISQ)值是通过共振频率分析,使用牙科非侵入性设备得出的,被认为是测量主要稳定性(即种植体植入时)、监测生物稳定性(骨结合)和修复负荷的指标。文献中缺乏针对特定患者群体的 ISQ 测量设备的系统性详细比较。本研究的主题就是这方面的问题,所使用的设备是临床上广泛使用的两种(Osstell® 和 Osseo®100)。本研究的目的是评估使用临床实践中最常用的两种标准设备进行 ISQ 测量的可靠性,并强调在比较未定义时间间隔的测量结果时存在的差异。研究方法我们招募了 50 名患者(男性 16 人,女性 34 人),平均年龄 55.4 岁,他们都表示要进行种植牙手术,并符合纳入标准。根据骨密度将样本分为两个相同的组别:A组(骨密度为D1-D2)和B组(骨密度为D3-D4)各有25名患者,40颗种植体。使用两种设备测量 ISQ:在不同的时间点(A 组:三次随访,B 组:四次随访)使用 Osstell® 和 Osseo 100® 两种设备测量 ISQ。结果所有参加研究的患者都顺利完成了研究,没有发生不良事件;所有植入的种植体都很成功,没有出现种植失败的情况。在每个研究组中,随着随访时间的延长,ISQ 值逐渐增加,除 A 组的 T1 随访外,Osstell 和 Osseo 100 的随访值没有显著差异。两种设备的时间比较显示,A 组在 T0 与 T2 之间存在显著差异,而 B 组在 T0 与 T1、T2 和 T3 之间存在显著差异。结论无论使用哪种设备,ISQ 测量都能有效监测种植体植入后的愈合情况,并根据 ISQ 值调节修复载荷,尤其是在细小骨小梁骨(D4 或再生骨)中植入种植体时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书