Implant stability in relation to osseointegration: an experimental study in the Labrador dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) is supposed to determine implant stability. The relation between RFA and the degree of bone-to-implant contact (BIC), however, is unclear. The objective of the present experiment was to evaluate RFA values in relation to osseointegration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 20 Labrador dogs, all mandibular premolars were extracted bilaterally. After 3 months, four transmucosal screw-shaped experimental implants were placed in each mandibular premolar region. The implants (12 mm length, slashed circle 4.1mm, insertion depth 9 mm) were either SLA surface or turned surface implants. The animals were divided into four groups (five dogs in each group) to study healing following implant installation at 2 h, 4 days, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12 weeks. Two experimental implants of each type were installed in each edentulous premolar region. A plaque control program was initiated 2 weeks after each implant installation. RFA assessments were performed at the time of implant installation, at one to three occasions during the monitoring period and at the termination of the experiment. At the end of the experiment, the dogs were sacrificed and each implant site was dissected and processed for histological analysis. The results of the histological analysis, i.e. marginal bone level, degree of osseointegration (BIC%) and bone density, were compared with the corresponding Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) values of the RFA assessment. RESULTS: No correlations between histological parameters of osseointegration and ISQ values could be identified. Marginal bone level changes, differences in BIC% and bone density were not reflected in the RFA at any time-point during the 12-week monitoring period. CONCLUSION: The value of RFA to predict implant stability over time and to determine at which time-point an implant may be exposed to functional load has to be questioned.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".