FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2897870728> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2897870728 endingPage "222" @default.
• W2897870728 startingPage "215" @default.
• W2897870728 abstract "Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values recorded by three commercially available resonance frequency analysis (RFA) instruments from a large cohort of implants in order to determine their accuracy and agreement with one another both for static measurements of ISQ at a given time and for change in ISQ over time.Materials and Methods: A cohort of n = 210 implants had their primary stability, secondary stability, or both evaluated in both the mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) directions by means of ISQ using three different RFA instruments: Osstell ISQ (OISQ), Osstell IDx (OIDX), and the Penguin (PG). ISQ values were recorded both at the time of implant placement and at 3 months postinsertion prior to definitive restoration. All values were tabulated for a blinded statistical analysis using Bland-Altman plots to determine if the outcome values were in agreement both for primary and secondary stability. In addition, a subgroup was evaluated to determine if change in ISQ was also in agreement. An intraclass correlation (ICC) was used to measure the reliability of the measurements for each instrument.Results: Bland-Altman plots confirmed that there was a high agreement for MD values between OISQ and OIDX, with 72.7% of readings being within one ISQ unit and 94.7% within four units. Comparing PG to OISQ, the respective values at one and four units were 15.3% and 82.3%, and comparing PG to OIDX, the respective values were 16.3% and 85.2%. In general, there was a greater uncertainty in the BL values having wider variability and demonstrating less agreement between instruments, with the percentage of readings falling within four units reducing to 85.9% (OISQ vs OIDX), 72.3% (PG vs OISQ), and 74.3% (PG vs OIDX). For change in ISQ over time, 92.3% of values were in agreement to within four units between instruments OISQ and OIDX in the MD direction and 73% in the BL direction. The respective percentage changes of values in agreement within four units for PG vs OISQ were 76.9% and 60.3% and for PG vs OIDX were 80% and 53.8%. The paired t test from mixed effects revealed that there was a significant difference for mean MD values between PG vs OISQ; P = .015 with a mean 0.823 units higher was recorded for PG. Similarly for PG vs OIDX, P = .008 with a mean 0.871 units higher was recorded for PG. For mean BL values between PG vs OIDX, P = .000 with a mean 1.161 units higher was recorded for PG, and finally, for OISQ vs OIDX, P = .005 with a mean 0.597 units higher was recorded for OISQ. However, the maximum upper and lower bound estimated bias between any two instruments was only 1.86 units and 0.46 units both for PG vs OIDX in the BL direction, and it is doubtful that this is of clinical relevance even if statistically significant. ICC revealed that for static MD measurements, there was an 85% reliability between all three instruments (range: 79% to 97%). For BL measurements, the reliability value was 66% (range: 69% to 71%). When considering ICC for changes in ISQ values over time in the MD direction, there was a 70% reliability between all three instruments (range: 58% to 94%). For BL measurements, the reliability value was 58% (range: 46% to 91%).Conclusion: Differences exist between instruments to some extent, most notably between the Penguin and the two instruments from Osstell, which showed good agreement to each other. While differences in evaluating ISQ with the PG were statistically significant, they were less than 1.86 units at the upper bound limit, and it is doubtful that this is of clinical relevance. Increased variability and reduced reliability for BL values render these less clinically sound when trying to assess primary stability." @default.
• W2897870728 created "2018-10-26" @default.
• W2897870728 creator A5038530658 @default.
• W2897870728 date "2019-01-01" @default.
• W2897870728 modified "2023-10-12" @default.
• W2897870728 title "Resonance Frequency Analysis: Agreement and Correlation of Implant Stability Quotients Between Three Commercially Available Instruments" @default.
• W2897870728 cites W1897381753 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W1910360816 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W1967868106 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W1970672262 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W2099073877 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W2123224923 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W2130905414 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W2322643163 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W2400658864 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W2460330664 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W2511302018 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W2587416678 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W2735387303 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W2768921804 @default.
• W2897870728 cites W2769079886 @default.
• W2897870728 doi "https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6964" @default.
• W2897870728 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30282089" @default.
• W2897870728 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2897870728 type Work @default.
• W2897870728 sameAs 2897870728 @default.
• W2897870728 citedByCount "11" @default.
• W2897870728 countsByYear W28978707282020 @default.
• W2897870728 countsByYear W28978707282021 @default.
• W2897870728 countsByYear W28978707282023 @default.
• W2897870728 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2897870728 hasAuthorship W2897870728A5038530658 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C101414908 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C104709138 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C2775890951 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C2778846597 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C2781411149 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C3018577593 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConcept C9893847 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C101414908 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C104709138 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C105795698 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C141071460 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C199343813 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C2775890951 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C2778846597 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C2781411149 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C29694066 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C2989005 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C3018577593 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C33923547 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C71924100 @default.
• W2897870728 hasConceptScore W2897870728C9893847 @default.
• W2897870728 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2897870728 hasLocation W28978707281 @default.
• W2897870728 hasLocation W28978707282 @default.
• W2897870728 hasOpenAccess W2897870728 @default.
• W2897870728 hasPrimaryLocation W28978707281 @default.
• W2897870728 hasRelatedWork W1944854275 @default.
• W2897870728 hasRelatedWork W1997816277 @default.
• W2897870728 hasRelatedWork W2015704243 @default.
• W2897870728 hasRelatedWork W2085453192 @default.
• W2897870728 hasRelatedWork W2101066939 @default.
• W2897870728 hasRelatedWork W2111623273 @default.
• W2897870728 hasRelatedWork W2353977212 @default.
• W2897870728 hasRelatedWork W2363334861 @default.
• W2897870728 hasRelatedWork W2416261683 @default.
• W2897870728 hasRelatedWork W2558623356 @default.
• W2897870728 hasVolume "34" @default.
• W2897870728 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2897870728 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2897870728 magId "2897870728" @default.
• W2897870728 workType "article" @default.