The influence of implant design on implant stability in low‐density bone under guided surgical template in inexperienced surgeons: A pilot randomized controlled clinical trial using resonance frequency analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are several factors that greatly influence implant stability with implant design being a paramount factor; however, few studies investigate its impact. AIM: To investigate the implant stability in relation to two different implant designs, a cylindrical shaped single-threaded design (CS/ST) and a tapered shaped double-threaded design (TS/DT) using resonance frequency analysis over the first 8 weeks after implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight implants were randomly allocated using computer-generated random numbers into two groups and were placed as single tooth implant in the posterior arch in human jaw as specimens. iCAT™ CBCT scan (Hatfield, PA) was used to determine the bone density according to Misch's Bone classification. The osseotomy sites were prepared and implants were placed with guided surgical template by inexperienced surgeons which were prepared with the same implant planning software (3shape® implant studio). The implant stability was measured using the resonance frequency analysis Osstell® ISQ (Osstell AB, Sweden) on the implant level over the first 8 weeks at three different time intervals. A mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) value was recorded at each measurement time points. The first ISQ of each implant recorded at the time of implant placement were considered as baseline and were the so-called primary stability. RESULTS: All 28 dental implants were analyzed. A similar pattern of implant stability changes was observed in both implant designs. A significant decreased was found at the first 4 weeks after implantation (p < 0.05) before ascending to maximum cumulative stability by the eighth week (p < 0.05). Between the two groups, TS/DT group had a higher mean ISQ values than that of the CS/ST group at all three observation periods but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.69). Regarding different types of bone, TS/DT showed a significant difference in mean ISQ values in D4 bone. To date, all 28 implants are in function with no failure/and or complications. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in implant design did not significantly influence the implant stability. TS/DT shows superiority over CS/ST when placed in D4 bone and offer a significant advantage due to their positive bounce back of the ISQ values by the eighth week after implant installation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: TCTR20211020005.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".