Ferreira José Joaquim da Rocha, Machado Luís Filipe Meira, Parente Marco Paulo Lages, Ramos João Carlos Tomás
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2025 Jul 25;40(4):477-487. doi: 10.11607/jomi.10977.
To verify whether measuring the implant stability quotient (ISQ) at the abutment level is identical to the value obtained at the implant level.
A retrospective clinical study and in vitro study were performed. For each study, the ISQ measured at the implant level defined the control groups. The values obtained after the abutment seating comprised the test groups, which were divided into three test subgroups corresponding to three different multiunit abutments: (1) straight multiunit abutments (MUAS) and (2) 17-degree angled multiunit abutments (MUA17), both with a 2.5-mm collar, and (3) 30-degree angled multiunit abutments (MUA30) with a 3.5-mm collar. Data was compared by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Kruskal-Wallis test.
The control group (59 implants; 79.14 [SD = 3.39]) showed significantly higher measurements than the test group (73.22 [SD = 8.54]). In addition, the subgroup measurements from MUA17 (16 abutments; 66.38 [SD=1.20]) and MUA30 (16 abutments; 69.19 [SD = 0.96]) were lower than the control group. No differences were found in the MUAS (27 abutments; 79.67 [SD = 1.48]) subgroup when compared with the control group (correlation of 0.68). Regarding the in vitro analysis, the control group measurements (36 implants; 68.02 [SD = 1.81]) were significantly higher than the test group (62.57 [SD = 2.87]). The control group measurements were also higher than each test subgroup (12 abutments each): MUAS (65.44 [SD = 0.73]), MUA17 (60 [SD = 0.43]), and MUA30 (62.29 [SD= 0.35]).
Based on the results of this study, determining the ISQ at the abutment level results in lower ISQ values than the implant level; note that these measurements may not accurately reflect the actual implant stability. Future research is needed to explore whether and under what circumstances a correlation exists between the ISQ measured at the implant level and abutment level.
验证在基台水平测量种植体稳定性商数（ISQ）是否与在种植体水平获得的值相同。
进行了一项回顾性临床研究和一项体外研究。对于每项研究，在种植体水平测量的ISQ定义为对照组。基台就位后获得的值构成试验组，试验组分为三个试验亚组，对应三种不同的多单位基台：（1）直形多单位基台（MUAS）和（2）17度角形多单位基台（MUA17），两者均有2.5毫米的颈部，以及（3）30度角形多单位基台（MUA30），有3.5毫米的颈部。数据通过Wilcoxon符号秩检验和Kruskal-Wallis检验进行比较。
对照组（59颗种植体；79.14[标准差=3.39]）的测量值显著高于试验组（73.22[标准差=8.54]）。此外，MUA17（16个基台；66.38[标准差=1.20]）和MUA30（16个基台；69.19[标准差=0.96]）亚组的测量值低于对照组。与对照组相比，MUAS（27个基台；79.67[标准差=1.48]）亚组未发现差异（相关性为0.68）。关于体外分析，对照组测量值（36颗种植体；68.02[标准差=1.81]）显著高于试验组（62.57[标准差=2.87]）。对照组测量值也高于每个试验亚组（各12个基台）：MUAS（65.44[标准差=0.73]）、MUA17（60[标准差=0.43]）和MUA30（62.29[标准差=0.35]）。
基于本研究结果，在基台水平确定ISQ会导致比种植体水平更低的ISQ值；请注意，这些测量可能无法准确反映实际种植体稳定性。需要进一步研究探讨在种植体水平和基台水平测量的ISQ之间是否以及在何种情况下存在相关性。
