This in vitro study evaluated agreement among 10 trained evaluators when assessing implant stability with the Wired/Classic and Wireless/Periotest “M.” A difference of 1 Periotest value (PTV) between the wired (−7) and wireless (−8) instruments was observed for the pretest calibration ring. No significant differences were found between the instruments and for all evaluators for all tests (analysis of variance, P < .05). Each instrument can provide meaningful and reproducible recordings of stability measurements.

Introduction

Osseointegration of dental implants was introduced in 1985 by Branemark and his coworkers.1  As clinical success rates increased, dentists expanded their use of implants to include more challenging prosthodontic applications.

Primary implant stability depends on bone-implant contact, bone density, and implant length, material, and design. During healing, secondary stability occurs with the formation of woven and lamellar bone.2  Long-term clinical implant survival depends on the establishment and maintenance of integration sufficient to withstand the stresses encountered during function. Microstrains greater than 4000 produce microdamage that exceeds the threshold of bone tolerance3  and could result in a gradual loss of integration.46  At microstrains of about 3000, hypertrophic bone develops around the implant, which increases stability. Microstrains lower than 2000 could result in the loss of calcium and bone atrophy, which would likely result in decreased stability. Both short-term and long-term clinical success of implant-retained dental prostheses depend on the establishment and maintenance of a healthy bone-implant interface.

Regardless of the type of implant, the skill employed during implant placement, and prosthesis design, the bone-implant interface may begin to fail for a variety of reasons. Breakdown may occur gradually during the different stages of implant treatment without any obvious clinical signs. Unless the adverse conditions are corrected, catastrophic failure at the interface may result in a decrease of implant stability. Implants exhibiting significant clinical mobility are considered failures.

Over the years, dentists have used a variety of methods to determine when the bone-implant interface was sufficiently established for the dental prosthesis to be safely subjected to loading during function.7  There is also a need to detect early signs of failure in order to introduce corrective interventional therapy to prevent the loss of the implant. Diagnostic methods have been limited in their ability to quantify the status of the interface or to measure changes that may have occurred over the course of treatment. Therefore, there is a need to quantify the status of the bone-implant interface during all stages of implant treatment.

There are currently available to the profession 2 instruments, the Osstell (Intergration Diagnostics, AB, Goteberg, Sweden) and the Periotest (Medizintechnik Gluden, Modautal, Germany), to quantify the health status of the bone-implant interface. Each device has studies that support its use.812,14,15  The Osstell measurement is based on a continuous vibration of the implant. The instrument has been used in various studies to document changes in implant stability during healing, failure of the implant to integrate, supracrestal dimensions of the implant, and the degree of bone-implant contact.1315 

The Periotest uses a slightly different approach. It produces a transient vibration by tapping the implant 16 times over a period of 4 seconds as a rod inside of the Periotest hand piece is electromagnetically accelerated.619,21  Implants that are stable cause the plunger to rebound rapidly. The time that the plunger is in contact with the implant is transmitted to a mini CPU located within the body of the Periotest, which converts the reading into a Periotest value (PTV) that ranges between −8 (clinically rigid) and +50 PTVs (very mobile).20  The more negative the PTV, the more stable the implant. Chavez22  reported in 1993 that clinically successful, stable, and functional implants resulted in PTVs that ranged from −6 to −2 PTVs.

Olive and Aparicio16  suggested the Periotest was an easy-to-use objective instrument to assess implant stability. It has been observed that at the time of placement, PTVs of stable implants tend to be negative, somewhere in the range of −3 to −5 PTVs.23  During the first 1 to 3 months after implant placement, the PTVs become more positive as healing and remodeling of bone occurs at the bone-implant interface. Following loading of the prosthesis, PTVs gradually become more negative as long as the stresses are within physiologically acceptable limits and below the microdamage threshold as hypertrophic bone forms at the bone-implant complex.

The “Classic/Wired” Periotest (Medizintechnik Gluden) instrument has been the subject of several studies with generally favorable results.2127  To compete with the Osstell, a wireless resonance frequency device, a wireless version of the Periotest (Periotest “M”) has been introduced to the profession. To be accepted by clinicians involved in implant dentistry, an instrument designed to assess the health status of the bone-implant interface must be easy to use and provide reasonable and reproducible measurements of the status of this interface. The resulting measurements should reasonably reflect the heath status of the bone-implant complex and not be influenced widely by slight variations in clinical use or the dentist using it.

Any instrument intended to quantify implant stability over long periods of function by different evaluators, with varying clinical training, skills, and experience, must provide reproducible data. Therefore, the objectives of this in vitro study were (1) to determine if the wired and wireless Periotests provide reproducible data with a standardized calibration specimen and (2) to determine if an acceptable level of agreement exists between the 2 types of Periotest instruments when used by different evaluators to measure the mobility of specially designed and standardized test specimens.

Materials and Methods

Three metal test specimens were fabricated for use by the 10 evaluators (Figure 1). Solid aluminum cylinders were hollowed out at each end to provide a depression 1 cm in diameter and 2 mm in depth. The depressions were covered by thin metal membranes of different thicknesses fabricated from different alloy materials. The membranes were retained in place with retention rings that also served as pretest calibration rings (Figure 2). Before each test sequence, the evaluator would activate the instrument and record the PTV for the pretest calibration ring. If the pretest was completed correctly, the PTVs for the wired Periotest would be −7 PTVs and −8 PTVs for the wireless Periotest included in this study. These PTVs were determined at the time of fabrication of the test specimens. The evaluators were instructed to hold the hand piece at a 90° angle to the specimen to be tested and parallel to the floor for each test sequence.

When activated, each Periotest produces a characteristic sound, signaling that the test is being completed correctly. Evaluators were required to demonstrate that they could obtain 2 identical PTVs out of 3 test attempts, and this PTV was recorded. The wired instrument produced a moderate “bong” each time the plunger within the hand piece contacted the test specimen. The PTV was displayed on a digital scale on the hand piece while a digitally generated artificial voice announced the value. The same sequence using the wireless Periotest resulted in a softer, higher-pitch sound and a digital readout but without the audible artificial voice.

Before each test sequence, the evaluator activated the Periotest to test the calibration ring (Figures 1 and 2), which produced a −7 PTV (variance = 0) for the wired and −8 PTV (variance = 0) for the wireless Periotest. These PTVs ensured that the instruments were functioning correctly. For the study, the hand piece was directed to the center of the metal membrane and the instrument activated 3 times for each test specimen. If 2 of the 3 tests produced the same result, that PTV was recorded for that sequence. This sequence was repeated 3 times for each of the test specimens, and the data were recorded and entered into Excel 2007 for future analysis.

To reduce evaluator bias, the evaluators selected to participate in the study did not have any previous experience with the Periotest instrument. They were 4 dental hygienists, 2 general practice residents, and 4 staff dentists. All tests were completed without discussing the results among the evaluators to eliminate any potential of bias. All data were analyzed by an independent investigator using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) program within Excel 2007.

Results

Test data are displayed in Figure 3. The data were tested for significant differences between the 2 instruments and among all evaluators using the ANOVA. No significant difference was found between the data for the 2 Periotest instruments or the 10 different evaluators (P < .05).

Discussion

Although assessment of implant stability at the time of uncovering and abutment connection is important, equally critical is the determination of the status of the bone-implant interface after loading. Naert et al28  reported no clinically significant difference between the PTVs at the time of uncovering/abutment connection and follow-up. In view of the importance of preventing implant failures, a longitudinal, reliable, quantitative test procedure could encourage dental researchers to focus on the development of intervention procedures to correct any conditions causing failure at the interface. This could eliminate the trauma and the costs associated with prosthesis removal, implant removal, and replacement. Since the Osstell instrument requires abutment and prosthesis removal to allow the placement of a “smart peg” to determine the implant stability quotient, the results of the study by Naert et al28  suggest a possible advantage of the Periotest in detecting changes in the bone-implant complex, if the longitudinal testing could be completed over time without removing the prosthesis. Their study suggested that implants splinted together should have similar PTVs when tested over a period of long-term clinical function; however, this possibility needs to be studied in more detail.

Conclusion

The results suggest that the wired and wireless Periotest instruments are capable of providing meaningful information concerning the status of the bone-implant interface and the resulting stability of the implant.

Abbreviation

     
  • PTV

    Periotest value

References

References
1
Branemark
P-I
.
An introduction to osseointegration
.
In
:
Branemark
P-I
,
Albrektsson
T
,
eds
.
Tissue Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry
.
Chicago
:
Quintessence;
1985
:
11
53
.
2
Cochran
DL
,
Schenk
R
,
Lussi
A
,
Higginbottom
FL
,
Buser
D
.
Bone response to unloaded and loaded titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a histometric study in the canine mandible
.
J Biomed Res
.
1998
;
40
:
1
11
.
3
Carter
DR
,
Caler
WE
,
Spengler
DM
,
Frankel
VH
.
Fatigue behavior in adult cortical bone—the influence of mean strain and strain range
.
Acta Orthop Scand
.
1981
;
52
:
481
490
.
4
Carter
DR
,
Caler
WE
.
Cycle dependent bone fracture with repeated loading
.
J Biomed Eng
.
1983
;
105
:
166
170
.
5
Frost
HM
.
Transient-steady state phenomena in microdamage physiology: a proposed algorithm for lamellar bone
.
Calif Tissue Int
.
1989
;
44
:
367
381
.
6
Frost
HM
.
Some ABC's of skeletal pathophysiology: microdamage physiology
.
Calif Tissue Int
.
1991
;
49
:
229
231
.
7
Truhlar
RS
,
Morris
HF
,
Ochi
S
.
Stability of the bone-implant complex: results of longitudinal testing to 60 months with the Periotest device on endosseous implants
.
Ann Periodontol
.
2000
;
5
:
42
54
.
8
Nogerol
B
,
Munoz
R
,
Mesa
F
,
de Dios Luna J, O'Valle F. Early implant failure: prognostic capacity of Periotest: retrospective study of a large sample
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2006
;
17
:
459
464
.
9
Lachmann
S
,
Jager
B
,
Axmann
D
,
Gomez-Roman
G
,
Groten
M
,
Weber
H
.
Resonance frequency analysis and dampening capacity assessment. Part I: an in-vitro study on measurement reliability and a method of comparison in the determination of primary stability
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2006
;
17
:
75
79
.
10
Lachmann
S
,
Laval
JY
,
Jager
B
,
et al
.
Part 2: peri-implant bone loss follow-up: an in-vitro study with the Periotest and Osstell instruments
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2006
;
17
:
80
84
.
11
Zix
J
,
Kessler-Liechti
G
,
Mericske-Stern
R
.
Stability measurements of 1-stage implants in the maxilla by means of resonance frequency analysis: a pilot study
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2005
;
20
:
747
752
.
12
Winter
W
,
Mohrle
S
,
Holst
S
,
Karl
M
.
Parameters of implant stability measurements based on resonance frequency analysis and dampening capacity: a comparative finite element analysis
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2010
;
25
:
532
539
.
13
Meredith
N
,
Sennerby
L
,
Alleyne
D
,
Sennerby
L
,
Cawley
P
.
The application of resonance frequency analysis measurements to study the stability of titanium implants during healing in the rabbit tibia
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
1997
;
8
:
234
243
.
14
Ramusson
L
,
Meredith
N
,
Cho
IH
,
Sennerby
L
.
The influence of simultaneous versus delayed placement on the stability of titanium implants in onlay bone grafts
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1999
;
28
:
224
231
.
15
Barewal
RM
,
Oats
TW
,
Meredith
N
,
Cochran
DL
.
Resonance frequency measurement of implant stability in vivo on implants with a sandblasted and acid etched surface
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2003
;
18
:
641
651
16
Olive
J
,
Aparicio
V
.
The Periotest method as a measure of osseointegrated oral implant stability
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1990
;
5
:
390
400
.
17
Teerlink
J
,
Quirynen
M
,
Darius
P
,
et al
.
Periotest: an objective clinical diagnosis of bone apposition toward implants
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1991
;
6
:
55
61
.
18
Ochi
S
,
Morris
HF
,
Winkler
S
,
et al
.
The influence of implant type, material, coating, diameter, and length on Periotest values at second stage surgery. DICRG interm report no 4
.
Implant Dent
.
1994
;
3
:
159
162
.
19
van Steenberghe
D
,
Trico
J
,
Naert
I
,
et al
.
Damping characteristics of bone-to-bone interfaces: a clinical study with the Periotest device
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
1995
;
6
:
31
39
.
20
Schulte
W
.
The new Periotest method
.
Compend Contin Educ Dent Suppl
.
1988
;
12
:
S410
S415
.
21
Schulte
W
,
Lukas
D
.
Periotest to monitor osseointegration and check the occlusion in oral implantology
.
J Oral Implant
.
1993
;
19
:
23
32
.
22
Chavez
H
,
Ortman
LF
,
DeFranco
RL
,
Medige
J
.
Assessment of oral implant mobility
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
1993
;
70
:
421
426
.
23
Winkler
S
,
Morris
HF
,
Ochi
S
.
Implant survival to 36 months as related to length and diameter
.
Ann Periodontol
.
2000
;
5
:
26
31
.
24
Manz
MC
,
Morris
HF
,
Ochi
S
;
Dental Implant Group Planning Committee. An evaluation of the Periotest system. Part I: examiner reliability and repeatability of readings
.
Implant Dent
.
1992
;
1
:
142
146
.
25
Manz
MC
,
Morris
HF
,
Ochi
S
.
An evaluation of the Periotest system. Part II: reliability and repeatability of instruments
.
Implant Dent
.
1992
;
1
:
221
226
.
26
Truhlar
R
,
Lauciello
F
,
Morris
HF
,
Ochi
S
.
The influence of bone quality on Periotest values of endosseous dental implants at stage II surgery
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
1997
;
55
(
suppl 5
):
55
61
.
27
Walker
L
,
Morris
HF
,
Ochi
S
;
Dental Implant Planning Committee. Periotest values in the first two years after second stage surgery. Dental Implant Clinical Research Group Interm report No. 8
.
Implant Dent
.
1997
;
6
:
207
212
.
28
Naert
IE
,
Rosenberg
D
,
van Steenberghe
D
,
Tricio
JA
,
Nys
M
.
The influence of splinting procedures on periodontal tissues and peri-implant tissue damping characteristics: a longitudinal study with the Periotest device
.
J Clin Peridontol
.
1995
;
22
:
703
708
.