ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2024
An In Vitro Evaluation of Periotest Implant Stability Measurements Taken on Implant Retained Crowns and Healing Abutments.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polycaprolactone Impregnated 3D Printed Nanohydroxyapatite for Sinus Augmentation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Trial
- Objective Assessment of Tooth Mobility Using the Osstell Device: A Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Time- and Cost-Efficient, Minimally Invasive Comparative Assessment of Implant Stability: Reliability and Inter-Examiner Agreement of IST Versus ISQ Across Different Bone Quality Models.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the reliability of implant stability measurements recorded with the Periotest device and to investigate the differences in values when these measurements were taken on implant retained crowns and healing abutments. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-six implants in eight synthetic bone blocks were used to carry out implant stability measurements using the Periotest device by two different operators. Each block constituted an example of bone of density D1, D2, D3, or D4, and two blocks of each density were used. The healing abutments placed were of a height to allow approximately 6 mm of the implant-abutment complex to be supracrestal and temporary crowns were made to match the dimensions of an average central incisor. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the perio test values (PTVs) at each of the different heights on the implant abutments and implant crowns. Means for each site were calculated and distribution of data assessed using the Kruskal Wallis test. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine the relationship between the PTVs recorded on the implant abutments and implant crowns.
resultsThe mean PTV (±standard devidation) recorded across all sites was 5.57 ± 11.643 on the implant abutments, and 12.27 ± 11.735 on the temporary crowns. Excellent/good inter-operator ICCs were recorded for the mid-abutment site in all bone blocks D1-D4 (ICC = 0.814, p < 0.001, ICC = 0.922, p < 0.001, ICC = 0.938, p < 0.001, ICC = 776, p < 0.001). For mid crown sites, ICC between operators was excellent/good only for recordings in D2 bone (ICC = 0.897, p < 0.001).
conclusionsPeriotest device seems to be able to reliably measure implant stability across all types of bones when the implant stability is assessed at approximately 3 mm coronal to the implant platform for abutments and 4.5 mm for implant supported single crowns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.