Reliability of the Osstell Implant Stability Quotient and Penguin Resonance Frequency Analysis to Evaluate Implant Stability
Implant Dentistry:
August 2018 - Volume 27 - Issue 4 -
p 429–433
doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000766
Basic and Clinical Research
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.
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.
Comments