Factors influencing resonance frequency analysis assessed by Osstell^™<i>mentor</i> during implant tissue integration: I. Instrument positioning, bone structure, implant length

Abstract Aim: To monitor longitudinally the development of implant stability of SLA Straumann ® tissue‐level implants using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and to determine the influence of instrument positioning, bone structure and implant length on the assessment of RFA. Material and methods: Thirty‐two healthy adult patients received either 8 mm, ∅4.1 mm Straumann ® Standard Plus tissue‐level implants ( n =16: Group A) or 10 mm, ∅4.1 mm Straumann ® Standard Plus tissue‐level implants ( n =16: Group B). During healing, RFA was performed on Weeks 0,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12. The implants were restored after 10 weeks (impression taking) and 12 weeks. In addition, probing depth, presence of plaque and bleeding on probing were assessed. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values of Groups A and B were compared using unpaired t ‐tests and longitudinally applying paired t ‐tests between Week 0 and the subsequent time points. Results: Positioning of the Osstell ™ mentor device did not affect the ISQ values. Generally, ISQ values increased continuously during healing from a mean of 65.1 (SD 16.97) to 74.7 (SD 5.17) (significantly from Week 0 to Weeks 6, 8 and 12). Lower bone density (Type III or IV) resulted in significantly lower ISQ values up to Week 8. Implant length affected the increase in ISQ values over time. While no significant increase was observed with 10 mm implants, ISQ values of 8 mm implants increased significantly from Week 0 to Weeks 6, 8 and 12. Conclusions: Using Osstell ™ mentor , ISQ values are reproducible irrespective of instrument positioning. ISQ values are affected by the bone structure and implant length. Hence, no predictive values can be attributed to implant stability. To cite this article: Sim CPC, Lang NP. Factors influencing resonance frequency analysis assessed by Osstell ™ mentor during implant tissue integration: I. Instrument positioning, bone structure, implant length. Clin. Oral Impl. Res . 21 , 2010; 598–604. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2009.01878.x