The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2014 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Periotest Values of Implants Placed in Sockets Augmented with Calcium Phosphosilicate Putty Graft: A Comparative Analysis against Implants Placed in Naturally Healed Sockets

TV Narayan, Sagrika Shukla, Georgios Kostakis

Citation Information : Narayan T, Shukla S, Kostakis G. Periotest Values of Implants Placed in Sockets Augmented with Calcium Phosphosilicate Putty Graft: A Comparative Analysis against Implants Placed in Naturally Healed Sockets. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014; 15 (2):181-185.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1511

Published Online: 01-10-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

To measure implant stability using periotest values of implants placed in sockets augmented with calcium phosphosilicate putty (CPS Putty) as compared with implant stability in naturally healed sockets.

Materials and methods

Twenty two sockets were implanted with CPS Putty immediately after extraction. The sockets were re-entered after a healing period at 5 to 6 months (average 5.3 months) for implant placement. Periotest values were recorded during implant insertion to assess primary stability. These were compared with the Periotest values of 26 implants placed in 22 patients, with naturally healed sockets.

Result

Periotest values were significantly lower in the grafted group, indicating better implant stability in sites grafted with CPS putty.

Conclusion

Implant stability seems to be significantly higher in sockets augmented using CPS putty when compared to nongrafted sites. This suggests that socket grafting with CPS putty may enhance the quality of available bone for implantation.

How to cite this article

Mahesh L, Narayan TV, Kostakis G, Shukla S. Periotest Values of Implants Placed in Sockets Augmented with Calcium Phosphosilicate Putty Graft: A Comparative Analysis against Implants Placed in Naturally Healed Sockets. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(2):181-185.

PDF Share
  1. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003 Oct;14(5):643-650.
  2. Histologic evaluation of bone-implant contact of immediately loaded transitional implants after 6 to 27 months – Int J Orla Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:54-60.
  3. The use of the periotest values as the initial criteria of an implant: 8 -year report. Int J Periodontal Rest Dent 1997;17:151-161.
  4. Periotest method as a measure of osseointegrated oral implant stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:390-400.
  5. Quantitative determination of the stability of the implant-tissue interface using resonance frequency analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:261-267.
  6. Methods used to assess implant stability: current status. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:743-754.
  7. Mapping implant stability by resonance frequency analysis. Med Sci Res 1996;24:191-193.
  8. Meta-analysis of methods used to assess implant stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:1015-1032.
  9. Periotest-neues messverfahren der function des paradontiums. Zahnarzti Mitt 1983;73:1229-1240.
  10. Periotest research and clinical trials. dtsch zahnarztl z 1985;40:113-125.
  11. Bone density: Its influence on implant stability after uncovering. J Oral Implantol 2003;29(6):263-269.
  12. Assessment of implant stability as a prognostic determinant. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:491-501.
  13. Early implant failure. Prognostic capacity of Periotest: Retrospective study of a large sample. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:459-464.
  14. The use of the Periotest value as the initial success criteria of an implant: 8-year report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1997;17:150-161.
  15. Potential damage to bone– implant interface when measuring initial implant stability. J Periodontol 2009;80:1868-1874.
  16. Multivariate study of factors influencing primary dental implant stability. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:196-200.
  17. Periotest values of dental implants in the first 2 years after second stage surgery: DICRG interim report no. 8. Dental implant clinical research group. Implant Dent 1997;6:207-212.
  18. Stability of the bone-implant complex. Results of longitudinal testing to 60 months with the periotest devices on endosseous dental implants. Ann Periodontal 2000;5:42-55.
  19. Required minimum primary stability and torque values for immediate loading of mini dental implants: an experimental study in nonviable bovine femoral bone. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:e20-e27.
  20. correction of craniofacial skeleton contour defects using bioactive glass particles. J Plast Reconstr Surg July 2006;30(2):113-119.
  21. Boneimplant contact on machined and dual acid-etched surface after 2 months of healing in human maxilla. J Periodontal 2003;74:945-956.
  22. Quantified bone tissue reactions to various metallic materials with reference to the so-called osseointegration concept. In: davies JE, editor. The bone-biomaterial interface. Toronto: University of Toronto press; 1991:357-363.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.