Show simple item record

Authordc.contributor.authorGahona Gutiérrez, Osvaldo 
Authordc.contributor.authorGranic Marinov, Xenia 
Authordc.contributor.authorAntunez Chelmes, Cristina 
Authordc.contributor.authorDomancic Alucema, Stefan 
Authordc.contributor.authorDíaz Narváez, Víctor 
Authordc.contributor.authorUtsman Abarca, Robert 
Admission datedc.date.accessioned2018-12-20T15:25:09Z
Available datedc.date.available2018-12-20T15:25:09Z
Publication datedc.date.issued2018
Cita de ítemdc.identifier.citationJournal of Osseointegration, Volumen 10, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 103-107.
Identifierdc.identifier.issn20364121
Identifierdc.identifier.issn2036413X
Identifierdc.identifier.other10.23805/JO.2018.10.03.06
Identifierdc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/159167
Abstractdc.description.abstractAim Determining appropriate primary stability at time of implant placement is a key therapeutic decision. The aim of the study was to compare insertion torque and implant stability quotient (ISQ) obtained at the time of implant placement, as predictors of osseointegration. Methods There were 31 implants evaluated in the maxilla and 29 in the mandible. A “High Torque Indicating Ratchet Wrench” was used for the measurement of insertion torque and a “Osstell Mentor®” to register the ISQ value at the end of each surgery. At 6 weeks counter-torque was performed on each implant using a “Low Torque Indicating Ratchet Wrench” applying 20 to 32 Ncm. Successful osseointegration was appropriately obtained with torque insertion of 35 or more and an ISQ of 60 or more without mobility, as well as torque insertion less than 35 and an ISQ less than 60 with mobility. The results, contrary to those described above, were considered to be failure. The use of ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curves establishes differences between the two methods. Contingency tables and Kappa statistics were used to analyze the coincidence results between methods. Insertion torque was used as the Gold Standard. The significance level used is α≤0.05. Results In the ROC curve analysis, the area of value was 0.611 (p> 0.05). The Kappa statistic value was 0.208 (p> 0.05) and there are no discrepancies between success and failure between the two methods compared. Conclusion Both methods tend to have the same results in relation to the studied variables.
Lenguagedc.language.isoen
Publisherdc.publisherAriesdue
Type of licensedc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile
Link to Licensedc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/cl/
Sourcedc.sourceJournal of Osseointegration
Keywordsdc.subjectDental implants
Keywordsdc.subjectInsertion torque
Keywordsdc.subjectPrimary stability
Keywordsdc.subjectResonance frequency analysis
Títulodc.titleInsertion torque and resonance Frequency analysis (ISQ) as predictor methods of implant osseointegration
Document typedc.typeArtículo de revista
Catalogueruchile.catalogadorjmm
Indexationuchile.indexArtículo de publicación SCOPUS
uchile.cosechauchile.cosechaSI


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile