Resonance frequency analysis with two different devices after conventional implant placement with ridge preservation: A prospective pilot cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary and secondary implant stability is of high importance for survival and success of dental implants in the short and long term. Measurements of implant stability during healing provide the opportunity to monitor the course of the osseointegration process. PURPOSE: To compare implant stability quotient (ISQ) by resonance frequency analysis (RFA), recorded with two different devices after implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with the need of single tooth extraction in posterior sites of the maxilla and the mandible were treated in a surgical center. All patients received additional augmentation with a bovine bone substitute and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) after atraumatic tooth extraction. After a healing period of 10 weeks, 28 self-tapping titanium-implants were placed. Implant stability was recorded with two different devices (Osstell and Penguin) at the time of implant insertion (T0), 10 days later (T1), and after 7 (T2), or 17 weeks (T3). RESULTS: No implant was lost, and no postoperative complication occurred during follow-up. Patient cohort comprised 9 female (32.1%) and 19 male patients (67.9%), with a mean age of 52.8 years, 64.3 years, respectively. Mean overall insertion torque was 43.6 Ncm at implant placement with no significant difference between implant location, age, or gender. No patient dropped out. During observation period, a significant increase in mean ISQ was recorded with both devices. Significant positive correlations between insertion torque and ISQ were recorded with both devices at T0, T2, and T3. No significant differences were observed in ISQ-values between both devices, and measuring directions at any point of measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this cohort study, both devices were suitable for RFA-measurement and revealed comparable results. Due to the cordless design, handling of the Penquin device was more comfortable. Reusability of the Penguin MultiPeg-transducers may offer an additional benefit with regard on ecological aspects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".