The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Determination of Immediate-loaded Single Implants’ Stability with Periotest

Kyatsandra N Jagadeesh, Sudhanshu Kumar, Anuj Singh Parihar, Jasvinder Kaur, Randhir Kumar, Kunal Kumar

Keywords : Dental implant, Periotest, Stability

Citation Information : Jagadeesh KN, Kumar S, Parihar AS, Kaur J, Kumar R, Kumar K. Determination of Immediate-loaded Single Implants’ Stability with Periotest. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (11):1245-1248.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2900

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-02-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim and objective: The aim of this study was to determine the stability of immediate-loaded single implants with periotest. Materials and methods: In this in vivo study, dental implants with a length ranging from 10 to 13 mm and diameter of 3.0–4.2 mm were utilized. Stability of dental implant was evaluated using the Periotest® M handheld device before loading, at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Results: Implants 11.5 mm in length had the highest mean periotest value (0) after placement, whereas 10 mm-long implant had a value of −0.31 and 13 mm had a value of −0.48. After 1 month, 10 mm had a value of 1.23, 11.5 mm had a value of −0.32, and 13.0 mm had a value of −0.24. After 6 months, 10 mm had a value of 1.78, 11.5 mm had a value of −0.4, and 13.0 mm had a value of −0.41. After 1 year, 10 mm had a value of −0.54, 11.5 mm had a value of −0.51, and 13.0 mm had a value of −0.48. There was an unconstructive relationship between implant length and the average periotest score. There was also an unconstructive association between the implant diameter and the mean periotest value. Conclusion: The implant with long and greatest diameter had higher stability. Periotest can be used to determine dental implant stability. Clinical significance: Periotest is useful in determining dental implant stability. Large-scale studies may be helpful in obtaining useful results.


PDF Share
  1. Failure rates of short (≤10 mm) dental implants and factors influencing their failure: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26(4):816–825.
  2. Implant success vs implant survival. J Dent 2016;6(2):1–5. DOI: 10.4172/2161-1122.1000359.
  3. Implant design influencing implant success: a review. Int J Dent Res Develop 2016;4(6):39–48.
  4. Effect of surface design and morphology on primary stability of dental implant: a systematic review. EC Den Sci 2019. 401–409.
  5. The effect of thread pattern upon implant osseointegration. Clin Oral Impl Res 2010;21(2):129–136.
  6. Evaluation of stability changes in tapered and parallel wall implants: a human clinical trial. J Dent (Tehran) 2011;8(4):186–200.
  7. Immediate loading of single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla. preliminary results after one year. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14(2):180–187. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140207.x.
  8. Influence of bone density on implant stability parameters and implant success: a retrospective clinical study. BMC Oral Health 2008;8:32. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-8-32.
  9. Evaluation of the periotest as a diagnostic tool for dental implants. J Oral Implantol 1998;24(3):139–146. DOI: 10.1563/1548-1336(1998)024<0139:EOTPAA>2.3.CO;2.
  10. An evaluation of the resonance frequency analysis device: examiner reliability and repeatability of readings. J Oral Implantol 2013;39(6):704–707. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00099.
  11. Assessment of implant stability: methods and recent advances. Brit J Med Med Res 2016;12(3):1–10. DOI: 10.9734/BJMMR/2016/21877.
  12. Comparison of the primary and secondary stability of implants with anodized surfaces and implants treated by acids: a split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31(1):186–190. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4212.
  13. A comparative study of two noninvasive techniques to evaluate implant stability: periotest and Osstell mentor. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107(4):513–518. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.08.026.
  14. Comparative evaluation of implant stability in two different implant systems at baseline and 3–4 months intervals using RFA device (OSSTELL ISQ). Indian J Dent Res 2019;30(5):678–686. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_446_17.
  15. The evaluation of the reliability of periotest for implant stability measurements: an in Vitro study. J Oral Implantol 2015;41(4):e90–e95. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00303.
  16. Evaluation of the relationship between Periotest values, marginal bone loss, and stability of single dental implants: a 3-year prospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2019;S0022–3913(19):30587. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.023.
  17. Assessment of Osstell™ and Periotest® systems in measuring dental implant stability (in vitro study). Saudi Dent J 2011;23(1):17–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2010.09.003.
  18. The effect of implant characteristics on the implant stability of immediately loaded single implant cases: a prospective study. J Dent Implant 2018;8(2):48–53. DOI: 10.4103/jdi.jdi_12_18.
  19. Comparison of implant stability before prosthetic loading of two dental implant systems. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13(4):450–454. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0248-0.
  20. Assessment of implant mobility at second stage surgery with the Periotest: DICRG interim report no. Implant Dent 1994;3(3):153–156. DOI: 10.1097/00008505-199409000-00002.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.