Relevance of resonance frequency analysis to evaluate dental implant stability: simulation and histomorphometrical animal experiments
Relevance of resonance frequency analysis to evaluate dental implant stability: simulation and histomorphometrical animal experiments
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01419.x
复制
发表时间：
2008-01-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Kasugai, Shohei
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ito, Yoshihiro;Sato, Daisuke;Kasugai, Shohei
背景：共振频率分析(RFA)被用于评估种植体的稳定性，这一应用的临床相关性被接受。然而，共振频率(RF)与种植体稳定性的其他参数，如种植体插入扭矩和植入部位的骨密度之间的差异已有报道。此外，RF与组织学种植体-骨接触的关系还没有很好的文献。目的：为了解释这种差异，并阐明RF与组织学种植体-骨接触的关系，我们进行了本研究。材料和方法：使用直径4 mm，长10 mm的羟基磷灰石涂层种植体。我们将种植体垂直放置在一个小塑料盒中，并在不同的高度位置用小螺丝将种植体固定在盒子内。在种植体上安装一个‘Osstell’换能器，在松开或不松开螺丝的情况下测量RF。在4头小型猪的胫骨内植入24枚种植体。分别于植入后1、2、4周处死动物，测量每个种植体的RF。结果：松动种植体颈部的螺丝钉，与其他部位的螺丝钉相比，显著降低了种植体与骨的接触系数。在种植体周围测量的RF与种植体-骨接触无显著相关性(r=0.221，P=0.299)。然而，当测量种植体颈部的骨接触时，相关系数增加到0.361(P=0.0835)，尽管这两个参数没有统计学上的相关性。结论：虽然种植体骨接触与组织学上的种植体骨接触没有相关性，但目前的结果表明，种植体与颈部骨的连接对种植体颈部骨接触的影响最大，这进一步表明射频消融在种植体治疗和随访过程中的优越性。这一结果可以解释RFA与其他种植体稳定性参数之间的差异。
Background: Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) is applied to evaluate implant stability, and the clinical relevance of this application is accepted. However, a discrepancy between resonance frequency (RF) and other parameters of implant stability such as implant insertion torque and bone mineral density at the insertion site has been reported. In addition, the relation between RF and histological implant-bone contact has not been well documented.Purpose: To explain this discrepancy and to clarify the relation between RF and histological implant-bone contact, we conducted the present study.Materials and methods: A hydroxyapatite-coated implant, 4 mm diameter and 10 mm length, was used. We placed the implant in a small plastic box vertically and fixed the implant in the box with small screws at different height positions. An 'Osstell' transducer was mounted on the implant and RF was measured with or without loosening the screws. Twenty-four implants were placed in the tibiae of four mini-pigs. The animals were sacrificed 1, 2 and 4 weeks after the placement, and the RF of each implant was measured. Ground sections were prepared and implant-bone contact was histomophometrically measured.Results: Loosening the screw at the neck region of the implant remarkably decreased RF compared with the screws of the other regions. Correlation between RF and implant-bone contact, which was measured all around the implant, was not significant (r=0.221, P=0.299). However, the correlation coefficient increased to '0.361' when implant-bone contact was measured at the neck of the implant (P=0.0835), although these two parameters were not statistically correlated.Conclusions: Although RF did not correlate with histological implant-bone contact, the present results demonstrated that a connection between the implant and bone at the neck region of the implant affects RF the most effectively, further suggesting the superiority of RFA in the process of implant treatment and the follow-up. The present results could explain the discrepancy between RFA and other parameters of implant stability.