Relationship between implant stability measurements obtained by insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary stability of dental implants can be evaluated by insertion torque (IT) and resonance frequency analysis (RFA). OBJECTIVE: Assess the supposed relationship between the IT and RFA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed based on the PRISMA. The electronic search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library electronic, OVID, and Scielo databases. Manual searches were also performed. There was no restrictions regarding year of publication or language. The articles identified were assessed independently by 3 trained researchers. Clinical trials reporting the RFA values by means of implant stability quotient (ISQ) and IT were included. RESULTS: = .366; P = .079). The quality of the evidence was downgraded by risk of bias and indirectness; and the certainty of the evidence was low. CONCLUSION: IT and RFA are independent and incomparable methods of measuring primary stability. Is important for clinicians to define only one method of evaluation for each implant.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".