Logotipo do repositório
 

Publicação:
Relationship between implant stability measurements obtained by two different devices: A systematic review

dc.contributor.authorAndreotti, Agda Marobo [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorGoiato, Marcelo Coelho [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorNobrega, Adhara Smith [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorFreitas Da Silva, Emily Vivianne [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorFilho, Humberto Gennari [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorPellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorMicheline Dos Santos, Daniela [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-11T17:31:39Z
dc.date.available2018-12-11T17:31:39Z
dc.date.issued2017-03-01
dc.description.abstractBackground: The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the relationship between two methods used to assess implant stability, investigating whether both provide similar implant stability assessments for the same clinical case. Methods: A literature search was conducted on MEDLINEPubMed and Scopus databases, without limitation of the publication period, up to November 2015. The following key words were used, with associations among them: dental implant, dental implants, Osstell, resonance frequency analysis, implant stability quotient, ISQ, Periotest, Periotest value, and PTV. Inclusion criteria were English language, prospective, retrospective, and randomized controlled clinical trials that evaluated implant stability through use of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and damping capacity analysis (DCA). The study should assess implant stability of only a specific region for all patients or discriminate results evaluated for each region if the analysis had been made in various regions; RFA and DCA should have been applied in the same implants and periods. Studies have been carefully selected, and data of interest were tabulated. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Although there was significant numerical correlation between values obtained by both methods, data showed that less than half (46%) of cases coincided in relation to implant stability classification. Conclusions: It can be considered that there is not always a consensus and standardization in the classification of implant stability related to the values obtained by RFA and DCA devices, which could create disagreements and miscommunication among dentistry professionals.en
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Aracxatuba Dental School UNESP, Jose Bonifacio, 1193
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Aracxatuba Dental School UNESP, Jose Bonifacio, 1193
dc.format.extent281-288
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2016.160436
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Periodontology, v. 88, n. 3, p. 281-288, 2017.
dc.identifier.doi10.1902/jop.2016.160436
dc.identifier.issn0022-3492
dc.identifier.lattes9719883814872582
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85014369055
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/178687
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Periodontology
dc.relation.ispartofsjr1,408
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restritopt
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectBone-implant interface
dc.subjectDental implants
dc.subjectOsseointegration prosthesis implantation
dc.subjectReview
dc.titleRelationship between implant stability measurements obtained by two different devices: A systematic reviewen
dc.typeResenhapt
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isDepartmentOfPublication5f53b343-da2a-4737-96ec-6e2389a6d704
relation.isDepartmentOfPublication.latestForDiscovery5f53b343-da2a-4737-96ec-6e2389a6d704
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication8b3335a4-1163-438a-a0e2-921a46e0380d
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery8b3335a4-1163-438a-a0e2-921a46e0380d
unesp.author.lattes9719883814872582
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Faculdade de Odontologia, Araçatubapt
unesp.departmentMateriais odontológicos e Prótese - FOApt

Arquivos