EdenteV2, Istex, Corpus, bibRecord, 006587

Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study

Identifieur interne : 006587 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 006586; suivant : 006588

Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study

Auteurs : T. F. Tözüm ; B. T. Bal ; I. Turkyilmaz ; G. Gülay ; I. Tulunoglu

Source :

Journal of Oral Rehabilitation [ 0305-182X ] ; 2010-03.

RBID : ISTEX:CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0

English descriptors

Abstract

Summary Non‐invasive devices including resonance frequency (RF) analysis and mobility measuring (MM) damping capacity assessment are used to measure implant stability/mobility. The aims of the study were to compare the primary stability of implant inserted into extraction sockets by using RF with cable, RF wireless and new wireless MM device, to clarify the relation between these devices and to understand the correlations between peri‐implant bone levels and implant stability. A total of 30 screw‐type implants (3·75 × 11 and 4·2 × 11 mm) were inserted into extraction sockets of eight mandibular pre‐molar regions of human cadavers. The primary stability of implants was measured by three devices after insertion. Peri‐implant vertical defects were created in millimetre increments ranging between 0 and 5 mm, and stability/mobility of implants were analysed. At placement, the mean implant stability quotient of RF with cable, RF wireless and MM device values was 46 ± 1, 57·8 ± 9 and −5·4 ± 1, respectively. Statistical correlations were demonstrated between these devices (P = 0·001). Statistically significant differences were presented for all peri‐implant detects ranging between 0 and 5 mm for RF with cable and RF wireless at all increments. However, only a significant decrease was found between 0 and 1 mm defects, and 4 and 5 mm defects in MM device. Although RF with cable and RF wireless seem to be suitable to detect peri‐implant bone loss around implants in 1 mm increments, the new MM device may not be suitable to detect the 1 mm peri‐implant bone changes in human dried cadaver mandibles.

Url:

https://api.istex.fr/document/CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0/fulltext/pdf

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02038.x

Links to Exploration step

ISTEX:CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study</title>
<author><name sortKey="Tozum, T F" sort="Tozum, T F" uniqKey="Tozum T" first="T. F." last="Tözüm">T. F. Tözüm</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Bal, B T" sort="Bal, B T" uniqKey="Bal B" first="B. T." last="Bal">B. T. Bal</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Turkyilmaz, I" sort="Turkyilmaz, I" uniqKey="Turkyilmaz I" first="I." last="Turkyilmaz">I. Turkyilmaz</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, University of Texas Health Science at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Gulay, G" sort="Gulay, G" uniqKey="Gulay G" first="G." last="Gülay">G. Gülay</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Tulunoglu, I" sort="Tulunoglu, I" uniqKey="Tulunoglu I" first="I." last="Tulunoglu">I. Tulunoglu</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno>
<idno type="RBID">ISTEX:CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0</idno>
<date when="2010" year="2010">2010</date>
<idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02038.x</idno>
<idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0/fulltext/pdf</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">006587</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">006587</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study</title>
<author><name sortKey="Tozum, T F" sort="Tozum, T F" uniqKey="Tozum T" first="T. F." last="Tözüm">T. F. Tözüm</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Bal, B T" sort="Bal, B T" uniqKey="Bal B" first="B. T." last="Bal">B. T. Bal</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Turkyilmaz, I" sort="Turkyilmaz, I" uniqKey="Turkyilmaz I" first="I." last="Turkyilmaz">I. Turkyilmaz</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, University of Texas Health Science at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Gulay, G" sort="Gulay, G" uniqKey="Gulay G" first="G." last="Gülay">G. Gülay</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Tulunoglu, I" sort="Tulunoglu, I" uniqKey="Tulunoglu I" first="I." last="Tulunoglu">I. Tulunoglu</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr></monogr>
<series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title>
<title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno>
<imprint><biblScope unit="vol">37</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="217">217</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="224">224</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope>
<publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher>
<pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="2010-03">2010-03</date>
</imprint>
<idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Analyzer</term>
<term>Blackwell publishing</term>
<term>Bone loss</term>
<term>Cable</term>
<term>Cable version</term>
<term>Cadaver</term>
<term>Capacity assessment</term>
<term>Clin</term>
<term>Clin implant dent relat</term>
<term>Clin periodontol</term>
<term>Clinical study</term>
<term>Comparative statistics</term>
<term>Defect</term>
<term>Dental implant</term>
<term>Dental implants</term>
<term>Diameter implants</term>
<term>Different stability mobility measurement values</term>
<term>Extraction sockets</term>
<term>Hacettepe university</term>
<term>Human cadaver study</term>
<term>Implant</term>
<term>Implant diameter</term>
<term>Implant stability</term>
<term>Implant stability quotient</term>
<term>Increment</term>
<term>Insertion</term>
<term>Journal compilation</term>
<term>Mandible</term>
<term>Mobility</term>
<term>Mobility values</term>
<term>Natural teeth</term>
<term>Oral maxillofac implants</term>
<term>Oral rehabil</term>
<term>Osstell</term>
<term>Osstell mentor</term>
<term>Periimplant</term>
<term>Periodontol</term>
<term>Present study</term>
<term>Previous mobility</term>
<term>Primary stability</term>
<term>Resonance frequency</term>
<term>Resonance frequency analysis</term>
<term>Resonance frequency values</term>
<term>Sennerby</term>
<term>Stability</term>
<term>Stability mobility</term>
<term>Statistical correlations</term>
<term>Tozum</term>
<term>Turkyilmaz</term>
<term>Vertical defects</term>
<term>Wireless</term>
<term>Wireless analyzer</term>
<term>Wireless mobility</term>
<term>Wireless mobility values</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Analyzer</term>
<term>Blackwell publishing</term>
<term>Bone loss</term>
<term>Cable</term>
<term>Cable version</term>
<term>Cadaver</term>
<term>Capacity assessment</term>
<term>Clin</term>
<term>Clin implant dent relat</term>
<term>Clin periodontol</term>
<term>Clinical study</term>
<term>Comparative statistics</term>
<term>Defect</term>
<term>Dental implant</term>
<term>Dental implants</term>
<term>Diameter implants</term>
<term>Different stability mobility measurement values</term>
<term>Extraction sockets</term>
<term>Hacettepe university</term>
<term>Human cadaver study</term>
<term>Implant</term>
<term>Implant diameter</term>
<term>Implant stability</term>
<term>Implant stability quotient</term>
<term>Increment</term>
<term>Insertion</term>
<term>Journal compilation</term>
<term>Mandible</term>
<term>Mobility</term>
<term>Mobility values</term>
<term>Natural teeth</term>
<term>Oral maxillofac implants</term>
<term>Oral rehabil</term>
<term>Osstell</term>
<term>Osstell mentor</term>
<term>Periimplant</term>
<term>Periodontol</term>
<term>Present study</term>
<term>Previous mobility</term>
<term>Primary stability</term>
<term>Resonance frequency</term>
<term>Resonance frequency analysis</term>
<term>Resonance frequency values</term>
<term>Sennerby</term>
<term>Stability</term>
<term>Stability mobility</term>
<term>Statistical correlations</term>
<term>Tozum</term>
<term>Turkyilmaz</term>
<term>Vertical defects</term>
<term>Wireless</term>
<term>Wireless analyzer</term>
<term>Wireless mobility</term>
<term>Wireless mobility values</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract">Summary  Non‐invasive devices including resonance frequency (RF) analysis and mobility measuring (MM) damping capacity assessment are used to measure implant stability/mobility. The aims of the study were to compare the primary stability of implant inserted into extraction sockets by using RF with cable, RF wireless and new wireless MM device, to clarify the relation between these devices and to understand the correlations between peri‐implant bone levels and implant stability. A total of 30 screw‐type implants (3·75 × 11 and 4·2 × 11 mm) were inserted into extraction sockets of eight mandibular pre‐molar regions of human cadavers. The primary stability of implants was measured by three devices after insertion. Peri‐implant vertical defects were created in millimetre increments ranging between 0 and 5 mm, and stability/mobility of implants were analysed. At placement, the mean implant stability quotient of RF with cable, RF wireless and MM device values was 46 ± 1, 57·8 ± 9 and −5·4 ± 1, respectively. Statistical correlations were demonstrated between these devices (P = 0·001). Statistically significant differences were presented for all peri‐implant detects ranging between 0 and 5 mm for RF with cable and RF wireless at all increments. However, only a significant decrease was found between 0 and 1 mm defects, and 4 and 5 mm defects in MM device. Although RF with cable and RF wireless seem to be suitable to detect peri‐implant bone loss around implants in 1 mm increments, the new MM device may not be suitable to detect the 1 mm peri‐implant bone changes in human dried cadaver mandibles.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName>
<keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string>
<json:string>wireless</json:string>
<json:string>analyzer</json:string>
<json:string>clin</json:string>
<json:string>implant stability</json:string>
<json:string>dental implants</json:string>
<json:string>resonance frequency analysis</json:string>
<json:string>periimplant</json:string>
<json:string>sennerby</json:string>
<json:string>turkyilmaz</json:string>
<json:string>primary stability</json:string>
<json:string>mobility values</json:string>
<json:string>osstell</json:string>
<json:string>journal compilation</json:string>
<json:string>blackwell publishing</json:string>
<json:string>tozum</json:string>
<json:string>insertion</json:string>
<json:string>mandible</json:string>
<json:string>bone loss</json:string>
<json:string>vertical defects</json:string>
<json:string>increment</json:string>
<json:string>periodontol</json:string>
<json:string>defect</json:string>
<json:string>cadaver</json:string>
<json:string>present study</json:string>
<json:string>wireless mobility values</json:string>
<json:string>statistical correlations</json:string>
<json:string>implant stability quotient</json:string>
<json:string>diameter implants</json:string>
<json:string>resonance frequency</json:string>
<json:string>wireless mobility</json:string>
<json:string>mobility</json:string>
<json:string>resonance frequency values</json:string>
<json:string>human cadaver study</json:string>
<json:string>natural teeth</json:string>
<json:string>implant diameter</json:string>
<json:string>extraction sockets</json:string>
<json:string>cable version</json:string>
<json:string>stability mobility</json:string>
<json:string>dental implant</json:string>
<json:string>clinical study</json:string>
<json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string>
<json:string>oral rehabil</json:string>
<json:string>cable</json:string>
<json:string>hacettepe university</json:string>
<json:string>clin implant dent relat</json:string>
<json:string>previous mobility</json:string>
<json:string>wireless analyzer</json:string>
<json:string>clin periodontol</json:string>
<json:string>different stability mobility measurement values</json:string>
<json:string>capacity assessment</json:string>
<json:string>comparative statistics</json:string>
<json:string>osstell mentor</json:string>
<json:string>stability</json:string>
</teeft>
</keywords>
<author><json:item><name>T. F. TÖZÜM</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>B. T. BAL</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>I. TURKYILMAZ</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, University of Texas Health Science at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>G. GÜLAY</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>I. TULUNOGLU</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
</author>
<subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>bone loss</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>dental implants</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>mobility</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>peri‐implantitis</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>stability</value>
</json:item>
</subject>
<articleId><json:string>JOOR2038</json:string>
</articleId>
<arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-JQ0QHJN9-7</arkIstex>
<language><json:string>eng</json:string>
</language>
<originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string>
</originalGenre>
<abstract>Summary  Non‐invasive devices including resonance frequency (RF) analysis and mobility measuring (MM) damping capacity assessment are used to measure implant stability/mobility. The aims of the study were to compare the primary stability of implant inserted into extraction sockets by using RF with cable, RF wireless and new wireless MM device, to clarify the relation between these devices and to understand the correlations between peri‐implant bone levels and implant stability. A total of 30 screw‐type implants (3·75 × 11 and 4·2 × 11 mm) were inserted into extraction sockets of eight mandibular pre‐molar regions of human cadavers. The primary stability of implants was measured by three devices after insertion. Peri‐implant vertical defects were created in millimetre increments ranging between 0 and 5 mm, and stability/mobility of implants were analysed. At placement, the mean implant stability quotient of RF with cable, RF wireless and MM device values was 46 ± 1, 57·8 ± 9 and −5·4 ± 1, respectively. Statistical correlations were demonstrated between these devices (P = 0·001). Statistically significant differences were presented for all peri‐implant detects ranging between 0 and 5 mm for RF with cable and RF wireless at all increments. However, only a significant decrease was found between 0 and 1 mm defects, and 4 and 5 mm defects in MM device. Although RF with cable and RF wireless seem to be suitable to detect peri‐implant bone loss around implants in 1 mm increments, the new MM device may not be suitable to detect the 1 mm peri‐implant bone changes in human dried cadaver mandibles.</abstract>
<qualityIndicators><score>9.187</score>
<pdfWordCount>4331</pdfWordCount>
<pdfCharCount>27464</pdfCharCount>
<pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion>
<pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount>
<pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize>
<refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative>
<abstractWordCount>238</abstractWordCount>
<abstractCharCount>1613</abstractCharCount>
<keywordCount>5</keywordCount>
</qualityIndicators>
<title>Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study</title>
<pmid><json:string>20002537</json:string>
</pmid>
<genre><json:string>article</json:string>
</genre>
<host><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title>
<language><json:string>unknown</json:string>
</language>
<doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</json:string>
</doi>
<issn><json:string>0305-182X</json:string>
</issn>
<eissn><json:string>1365-2842</json:string>
</eissn>
<publisherId><json:string>JOOR</json:string>
</publisherId>
<volume>37</volume>
<issue>3</issue>
<pages><first>217</first>
<last>224</last>
<total>8</total>
</pages>
<genre><json:string>journal</json:string>
</genre>
</host>
<namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2010</json:string>
</date>
<geogName></geogName>
<orgName><json:string>Department of Anatomy</json:string>
<json:string>MIS Implants Technologies Ltd.</json:string>
<json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, University of Texas Health Science</json:string>
<json:string>SPSS Inc., Chicago</json:string>
<json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey Non</json:string>
<json:string>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</json:string>
<json:string>Integration Diagnostics</json:string>
<json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey</json:string>
</orgName>
<orgName_funder></orgName_funder>
<orgName_provider></orgName_provider>
<persName></persName>
<placeName><json:string>TX</json:string>
<json:string>Germany</json:string>
<json:string>San Antonio</json:string>
<json:string>USA</json:string>
<json:string>Gothenburg</json:string>
<json:string>Israel</json:string>
<json:string>Sweden</json:string>
</placeName>
<ref_url></ref_url>
<ref_bibl><json:string>Valderrama et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Oh et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Glauser et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Nkenke et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Zix et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Seong et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Tozum et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Lachmann et al.</json:string>
</ref_bibl>
<bibl></bibl>
</unitex>
</namedEntities>
<ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-JQ0QHJN9-7</json:string>
</ark>
<categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string>
<json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string>
</wos>
<scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string>
<json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string>
<json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string>
</scienceMetrix>
<scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string>
<json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string>
<json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string>
</scopus>
</categories>
<publicationDate>2010</publicationDate>
<copyrightDate>2010</copyrightDate>
<doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02038.x</json:string>
</doi>
<id>CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0</id>
<score>1</score>
<fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension>
<original>true</original>
<mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0/fulltext/pdf</uri>
</json:item>
<json:item><extension>zip</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/zip</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0/fulltext/zip</uri>
</json:item>
<istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study</title>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority>
<publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher>
<pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace>
<availability><licence>© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</licence>
</availability>
<date type="published" when="2010-03"></date>
</publicationStmt>
<notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note>
<note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note>
</notesStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study</title>
<title level="a" type="short">STABILITY/MOBILITY OF DENTAL IMPLANTS</title>
<author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">T. F.</forename>
<surname>TÖZÜM</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">B. T.</forename>
<surname>BAL</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey<address><country key="TR"></country>
</address>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">I.</forename>
<surname>TURKYILMAZ</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, University of Texas Health Science at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA<address><country key="US"></country>
</address>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">G.</forename>
<surname>GÜLAY</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey<address><country key="TR"></country>
</address>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">I.</forename>
<surname>TULUNOGLU</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey<address><country key="TR"></country>
</address>
</affiliation>
</author>
<idno type="istex">CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0</idno>
<idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-JQ0QHJN9-7</idno>
<idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02038.x</idno>
<idno type="unit">JOOR2038</idno>
<idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:JOOR.JOOR2038.pdf</idno>
</analytic>
<monogr><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title>
<title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION</title>
<idno type="pISSN">0305-182X</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno>
<idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</idno>
<idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/jor.2010.37.issue-3</idno>
<idno type="product">JOOR</idno>
<idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno>
<imprint><biblScope unit="vol">37</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="217">217</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="224">224</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope>
<publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher>
<pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="2010-03"></date>
</imprint>
</monogr>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold">Summary </hi>
 Non‐invasive devices including resonance frequency (RF) analysis and mobility measuring (MM) damping capacity assessment are used to measure implant stability/mobility. The aims of the study were to compare the primary stability of implant inserted into extraction sockets by using RF with cable, RF wireless and new wireless MM device, to clarify the relation between these devices and to understand the correlations between peri‐implant bone levels and implant stability. A total of 30 screw‐type implants (3·75 × 11 and 4·2 × 11 mm) were inserted into extraction sockets of eight mandibular pre‐molar regions of human cadavers. The primary stability of implants was measured by three devices after insertion. Peri‐implant vertical defects were created in millimetre increments ranging between 0 and 5 mm, and stability/mobility of implants were analysed. At placement, the mean implant stability quotient of RF with cable, RF wireless and MM device values was 46 ± 1, 57·8 ± 9 and −5·4 ± 1, respectively. Statistical correlations were demonstrated between these devices (<hi rend="italic">P</hi>
 = 0·001). Statistically significant differences were presented for all peri‐implant detects ranging between 0 and 5 mm for RF with cable and RF wireless at all increments. However, only a significant decrease was found between 0 and 1 mm defects, and 4 and 5 mm defects in MM device. Although RF with cable and RF wireless seem to be suitable to detect peri‐implant bone loss around implants in 1 mm increments, the new MM device may not be suitable to detect the 1 mm peri‐implant bone changes in human dried cadaver mandibles.</p>
</abstract>
<textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">bone loss</term>
<term xml:id="k2">dental implants</term>
<term xml:id="k3">mobility</term>
<term xml:id="k4">peri‐implantitis</term>
<term xml:id="k5">stability</term>
</keywords>
<keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
<langUsage><language ident="en"></language>
</langUsage>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
</istex:fulltextTEI>
<json:item><extension>txt</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>text/plain</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0/fulltext/txt</uri>
</json:item>
</fulltext>
<metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration>
<istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName>
<publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc>
</publisherInfo>
<doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</doi>
<issn type="print">0305-182X</issn>
<issn type="electronic">1365-2842</issn>
<idGroup><id type="product" value="JOOR"></id>
<id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id>
</idGroup>
<titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title>
</titleGroup>
</publicationMeta>
<publicationMeta level="part" position="03003"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jor.2010.37.issue-3</doi>
<numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="37">37</numbering>
<numbering type="journalIssue" number="3">3</numbering>
</numberingGroup>
<coverDate startDate="2010-03">March 2010</coverDate>
</publicationMeta>
<publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="9" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02038.x</doi>
<idGroup><id type="unit" value="JOOR2038"></id>
</idGroup>
<countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="8"></count>
</countGroup>
<titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title>
</titleGroup>
<copyright>© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</copyright>
<eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2009-12-11"></event>
<event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2010-02-02"></event>
<event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-06"></event>
<event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-20"></event>
<event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-30"></event>
</eventGroup>
<numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="217">217</numbering>
<numbering type="pageLast" number="224">224</numbering>
</numberingGroup>
<correspondenceTo>Dr Tolga F. Tözüm. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Dilektepe Street, 3rd Floor, Room 09, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey. E‐mail: <email>ttozum@hacettepe.edu.tr</email>
</correspondenceTo>
<linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JOOR.JOOR2038.pdf"></link>
</linkGroup>
</publicationMeta>
<contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 14 November 2009</unparsedEditorialHistory>
<countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="6"></count>
<count type="tableTotal" number="3"></count>
</countGroup>
<titleGroup><title type="main">Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study</title>
<title type="shortAuthors">T. F. TÖZÜM <i>et al.</i>
</title>
<title type="short">STABILITY/MOBILITY OF DENTAL IMPLANTS</title>
</titleGroup>
<creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>T. F.</givenNames>
<familyName>TÖZÜM</familyName>
</personName>
</creator>
<creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>B. T.</givenNames>
<familyName>BAL</familyName>
</personName>
</creator>
<creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>I.</givenNames>
<familyName>TURKYILMAZ</familyName>
</personName>
</creator>
<creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>G.</givenNames>
<familyName>GÜLAY</familyName>
</personName>
</creator>
<creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>I.</givenNames>
<familyName>TULUNOGLU</familyName>
</personName>
</creator>
</creators>
<affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University</unparsedAffiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="TR"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey</unparsedAffiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, University of Texas Health Science at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA</unparsedAffiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation xml:id="a4" countryCode="TR"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</unparsedAffiliation>
</affiliation>
</affiliationGroup>
<keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">bone loss</keyword>
<keyword xml:id="k2">dental implants</keyword>
<keyword xml:id="k3">mobility</keyword>
<keyword xml:id="k4">peri‐implantitis</keyword>
<keyword xml:id="k5">stability</keyword>
</keywordGroup>
<abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Summary </b>
 Non‐invasive devices including resonance frequency (RF) analysis and mobility measuring (MM) damping capacity assessment are used to measure implant stability/mobility. The aims of the study were to compare the primary stability of implant inserted into extraction sockets by using RF with cable, RF wireless and new wireless MM device, to clarify the relation between these devices and to understand the correlations between peri‐implant bone levels and implant stability. A total of 30 screw‐type implants (3·75 × 11 and 4·2 × 11 mm) were inserted into extraction sockets of eight mandibular pre‐molar regions of human cadavers. The primary stability of implants was measured by three devices after insertion. Peri‐implant vertical defects were created in millimetre increments ranging between 0 and 5 mm, and stability/mobility of implants were analysed. At placement, the mean implant stability quotient of RF with cable, RF wireless and MM device values was 46 ± 1, 57·8 ± 9 and −5·4 ± 1, respectively. Statistical correlations were demonstrated between these devices (<i>P</i>
 = 0·001). Statistically significant differences were presented for all peri‐implant detects ranging between 0 and 5 mm for RF with cable and RF wireless at all increments. However, only a significant decrease was found between 0 and 1 mm defects, and 4 and 5 mm defects in MM device. Although RF with cable and RF wireless seem to be suitable to detect peri‐implant bone loss around implants in 1 mm increments, the new MM device may not be suitable to detect the 1 mm peri‐implant bone changes in human dried cadaver mandibles.</p>
</abstract>
</abstractGroup>
</contentMeta>
</header>
</component>
</istex:document>
</istex:metadataXml>
<mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study</title>
</titleInfo>
<titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>STABILITY/MOBILITY OF DENTAL IMPLANTS</title>
</titleInfo>
<titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">T. F.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">TÖZÜM</namePart>
<affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">B. T.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">BAL</namePart>
<affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">I.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">TURKYILMAZ</namePart>
<affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, University of Texas Health Science at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">G.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">GÜLAY</namePart>
<affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">I.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">TULUNOGLU</namePart>
<affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre>
<originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher>
<place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm>
</place>
<dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2010-03</dateIssued>
<edition>Accepted for publication 14 November 2009</edition>
<copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010</copyrightDate>
</originInfo>
<language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</language>
<physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">6</extent>
<extent unit="tables">3</extent>
</physicalDescription>
<abstract>Summary  Non‐invasive devices including resonance frequency (RF) analysis and mobility measuring (MM) damping capacity assessment are used to measure implant stability/mobility. The aims of the study were to compare the primary stability of implant inserted into extraction sockets by using RF with cable, RF wireless and new wireless MM device, to clarify the relation between these devices and to understand the correlations between peri‐implant bone levels and implant stability. A total of 30 screw‐type implants (3·75 × 11 and 4·2 × 11 mm) were inserted into extraction sockets of eight mandibular pre‐molar regions of human cadavers. The primary stability of implants was measured by three devices after insertion. Peri‐implant vertical defects were created in millimetre increments ranging between 0 and 5 mm, and stability/mobility of implants were analysed. At placement, the mean implant stability quotient of RF with cable, RF wireless and MM device values was 46 ± 1, 57·8 ± 9 and −5·4 ± 1, respectively. Statistical correlations were demonstrated between these devices (P = 0·001). Statistically significant differences were presented for all peri‐implant detects ranging between 0 and 5 mm for RF with cable and RF wireless at all increments. However, only a significant decrease was found between 0 and 1 mm defects, and 4 and 5 mm defects in MM device. Although RF with cable and RF wireless seem to be suitable to detect peri‐implant bone loss around implants in 1 mm increments, the new MM device may not be suitable to detect the 1 mm peri‐implant bone changes in human dried cadaver mandibles.</abstract>
<subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre>
<topic>bone loss</topic>
<topic>dental implants</topic>
<topic>mobility</topic>
<topic>peri‐implantitis</topic>
<topic>stability</topic>
</subject>
<relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title>
</titleInfo>
<genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre>
<identifier type="ISSN">0305-182X</identifier>
<identifier type="eISSN">1365-2842</identifier>
<identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</identifier>
<identifier type="PublisherID">JOOR</identifier>
<part><date>2010</date>
<detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption>
<number>37</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption>
<number>3</number>
</detail>
<extent unit="pages"><start>217</start>
<end>224</end>
<total>8</total>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="istex">CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0</identifier>
<identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-JQ0QHJN9-7</identifier>
<identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02038.x</identifier>
<identifier type="ArticleID">JOOR2038</identifier>
<accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</accessCondition>
<recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource>
<recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin>
</recordInfo>
</mods>
<json:item><extension>json</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/json</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0/metadata/json</uri>
</json:item>
</metadata>
<serie></serie>
</istex>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 006587 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 006587 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Santé
   |area=    EdenteV2
   |flux=    Istex
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     ISTEX:CCE43D8B9262749CDB44695088B5E685C44082C0
   |texte=   Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study
}}

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32.
Data generation: Thu Nov 30 15:26:48 2017. Site generation: Tue Mar 8 16:36:20 2022

	Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté

Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study

Which device is more accurate to determine the stability/mobility of dental implants? A human cadaver study

Source :

English descriptors

Abstract

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri