In vitro comparison of resonance frequency analysis devices to evaluate implant stability of narrow diameter implants at varying drilling speeds in dense artificial bone blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are no studies that have assessed the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values of narrow diameter implants placed in artificial dense bone blocks at varying drilling speeds (DSs). PURPOSE: The aim of the present in vitro experiment was to compare the performance of OSSTELL and Penguin devices to evaluate implant stability at DSs of 800 and 2000 rpm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 360 osteotomies were created in dense artificial bone blocks at DSs of 800 and 2000 rpm. Dental implants from three manufacturers (group-1: NobelActive implants, Nobel Biocare, Yorba Linda, California; group-2: Zimmer, Eztetic-Zimmer implants, Zimmer Biomet Dental, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; and group-3: Astra Tech implant system, Dentsply Sirona, York, Pennsylvania) were randomly placed in these osteotomies using an insertion torque of 15 Ncm (60 implants/group). Implant stability in all bone blocks immediately following implant placement was evaluated using the OSSTELL and Penguin devices. ISQ values were presented as means ± SD. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the ISQ values obtained from the OSSTELL and Penguin devices for implants in groups 1, 2, and 3. There was no significant difference when ISQ values obtained from the OSSTELL device were compared with the Penguin device for narrow diameter dental implants placed in dense bone blocks with osteotomies performed at 800 and 2000 rpm. ISQ values showed statistically significant higher values for OSSTELL compared to Penguin device. CONCLUSION: The OSSTELL and Penguin devices are reliable for the assessment of implant stability in dense artificial bone. Implant design and site-DS does not seem to have a significant impact of implant stability in artificial dense bone blocks.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".