Grognard Nicolas, Verleye Gino, Mavreas Dimitrios, Vande-Vannet Bart
Kliniek Royal, Oostende, Belgium; PhD student @ CHIR- Unit Dentistry - ORHE, department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium.
Professor, Communication Sciences, Universiteit Gent, Belgium.
J Clin Exp Dent. 2017 Sep 1;9(9):e1121-e1128. doi: 10.4317/jced.54146. eCollection 2017 Sep.
At present, updated secondary implant stability data generated by actual versions of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and mobility measurement (MM) electronic devices of 2 different implant systems with actual manufactured surfaces seem to lack and/or are incomplete.
Secondary implant stability data based on both RFA and MM measurements were collected and analyzed from 44 formerly treated patients (24 f, 20 m) that received either Ankylos Cellplus (Ø3.5mm) (A) (n=36) or Straumann regular neck SLA tissue level (Ø4.1mm) (S) (n=37) implants in posterior positions of both jawbones (total number= 72). These results were interpretated in view of formerly published data.
Estimated RFA outcomes (mean±SD) for A implants were of 81.23 (±0.65) (LP) - 76.15 (±1.57) (UP) isq; for S implants 76.15 (±1.48) (LP) - 73.88 (±2.34) (UP) isq. Estimated MM outcomes for A implants were (-4.0) (±0.23) (LP) - (-3.2) (±0.33) (UP) ptv; for S implants (-5.15) (±0.39) (LP) - (-4.4) (±0.84) (UP) ptv. According to GEE statistical modelling, implant type and - position seems to influence the outcome variables (<0.05), gender and implant length did not ( >0.05).
Secondary implant stability values, recorded with current RFA and MM devices, of A Cellplus implants are provided for the first time. A difference of 14.7-9.7 isq values was noted for CellPlus versus TPS S implants recorded with a cabled RFA device. This study supports the assumption that RFA outcomes generated with first generation RFA devices are different from those obtained with current RFA devices, meaning that its use in reviews need caution and correction. Secondary implant stability, resonance frequency analysis, Periotest, Osstell Mentor, Straumann, Ankylos, CellPlus, SLA.
目前，由两种不同种植系统具有实际制造表面的共振频率分析（RFA）和松动度测量（MM）电子设备的实际版本所生成的最新种植体二级稳定性数据似乎缺乏且/或不完整。
收集并分析了44例曾接受治疗的患者（24名女性，20名男性）基于RFA和MM测量的种植体二级稳定性数据，这些患者在双侧颌骨后部植入了Ankylos Cellplus（直径3.5mm）（A组）（n = 36）或士卓曼常规颈部SLA组织水平（直径4.1mm）（S组）（n = 37）种植体（总数 = 72）。这些结果结合先前发表的数据进行解读。
A组种植体的RFA估计结果（均值±标准差）为81.23（±0.65）（低频） - 76.15（±1.57）（高频）isq；S组种植体为76.15（±1.48）（低频） - 73.88（±2.34）（高频）isq。A组种植体的MM估计结果为（-4.0）（±0.23）（低频） - （-3.2）（±0.33）（高频）ptv；S组种植体为（-5.15）（±0.39）（低频） - （-4.4）（±0.84）（高频）ptv。根据广义估计方程（GEE）统计模型，种植体类型和位置似乎会影响结果变量（<0.05），性别和种植体长不会（>0.05）。
首次提供了使用当前RFA和MM设备记录的Ankylos Cellplus种植体的种植体二级稳定性值。使用有线RFA设备记录时，CellPlus种植体与TPS S种植体相比，isq值相差14.7 - 9.7。本研究支持以下假设：第一代RFA设备生成的RFA结果与当前RFA设备获得的结果不同，这意味着在综述中使用时需要谨慎并进行校正。种植体二级稳定性、共振频率分析、Periotest、Osstell Mentor、士卓曼、Ankylos、CellPlus、SLA
