• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.301-308
• /
• 2007

Purpose: This study was performed to compare and evaluate the effect of recipient site depths and diameters of the drills on the primary stability of implant in pig's ribs. Materials and methods: An intact pig's rib larger than 8 mm in width and 20 mm in height; RBM(resorbable blasting media) surface blasted ${\phi}3.75mm$ and 8.0 mm long USII Osstem Implants (Osstem Co., Korea) were used. To measure the primary stability, $Periotest^{(R)}$ (Simens AG, Germany) and $Osstell^{TM}$ (Model 6 Resonance Frequency Analyser: Integration Diagnostics Ltd., Sweden) were used. They were divided into 6 groups according to its recipient site formation method: D3H3, D3H5, D3H7, D3.3H3, D3.3H5, D3.3H7. Each group had, as indicated, 10 implants placed, and total 60 implants were used. The mean value was obtained by 4-time measurements each on mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual side perpendicular to the long axis of the implant using $Periotest^{(R)}$ and $Osstell^{TM}$. For statistical analysis one-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean value of each group, and the correlation between placement depths and the primary stability, and that of measuring instruments was analyzed using SPSS 12.0. Results: The primary stability of the implants increased as the placement depths increased (p<0.05), and showed a proportional relationship (p<0.01). The primary stability increased when the diameter of the recipient site was smaller than that of the implant but with no statistical significance. There was a strong correlation between $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ (p<0.01). Conclusion: These results suggest that increasing the placement depth of implants enhances the primary stability of implant.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.327-336
• /
• 2007

Purpose This study was planned to compare and evaluate the stability of implant using $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$. Material and methods Artificial bone and RBM(resorbable blasting media) surface blasted implants(Osstem US II, SS II implants - diameter: 4mm, length: 13mm) were used. To measure the stability of installed implants, $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$ were used. In the first experiment, five implants were installed in D1(external type implants) and D3(internal type implants). In the second experiment, 4 internal type implants were divided in two groups and installed in D1 artificial bone with different depth. In the third experiment, two external implants were installed in D1 and D3 artificial bone each and two internal implants were installed in D1 and D3 artificial bone. In all groups, their stability were measured by $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$. Results In all groups, $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$ both showed reliable measurement values. The value difference between $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$ was observed but the difference was small and clinically acceptable. Conclusion These results suggest that the use of Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$ has clinical relevance in the assessment of implant stability.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.180-186
• /
• 2008

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the effect of the implant recipient site preparation methods on primary stability of implants with the instruments of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ in the iliac bone of cadaver. Methods and materials: The 8 iliac bones in 4 cadavers and implants treated with resorbable blasting media (RBM) were used. $Periotest^{(R)}$ (Simens AG, Germany) and $Osstell^{TM}$ (Model 6 Resonance Frequency Analyser: Integration Diagnostics Ltd., Sweden) were used to measure primary stability of implants. Implants were inserted into the iliac crest of the cadaver. In control group, the recipient site was prepared according to the manufacturer's recommendation: 1.8 mm guide drill, 2.0 mm initial drill, 2.7 mm pilot drill, 2.7 mm twist drill, 3.0 mm twist drill, 3.3 mm pilot drill, 3.3 mm twist drill, and 3.3 mm countersink drill as well as tapping drill were used in order. In the group 1, implant recipient sites were prepared by sequentially drilling from 1.8 mm guide drill to 3.0 mm twist drill and then inserted implants without countersinking and tapping. In the group 2, implant recipient sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill and then inserted implants without tapping. In the group 3, the sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill as well as tapping drill. In the group 4, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill. In the group 5, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill and countersink drill. A total of 60 implants were placed (n=10). The stability was measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ mesiodistally and buccolingually. To compare the mean stability of each group statistically, One-way ANOVA was used and correlation of instrument were analyzed using SPSS 12.0. The results obtained were as follows; 1. The stability of group 1 measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ buccolingually showed the highest, and there are significant difference statistically between control group and experimental group 1,2,4 in each instruments respectively (p<0.05). 2. The stability of group 1 measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ mesiodistally showed the highest. There are significant difference statistically between control group and all experimental groups in $Osstell^{TM}$, and between control group and experimental group 1,2,3,4 (p<0.05). 3. There are high correlation between the measurements of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ (p<0.05). Conclusion: These results indicate that the primary stability of implant can be obtained by the recipient sites preparation with smaller diameter drill than that of implant or minimal drilling.