ArticleBioinformation2024
Dependability of Osstell ISQ's for measuring implant stability.
Article in Bioinformation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Secondary implant stability in autologous one-stage internal and external sinus floor elevation using resonance frequency analysis - a three-month follow up.Clinical oral investigations · 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
- Customized CAD/CAM coral hydroxyapatite block for horizontal ridge augmentation in severe bone defects: A case report.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- Stability of dental implants using AnyCheck and Osstell devices.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Preclinical Experimental Study on New Cervical Implant Design to Improve Peri-Implant Tissue Healing.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Determining the optimal loading schedule and measuring implant stability at different times are critical tasks. Numerous tools have been created to assess implant-bone stability as a sign of a well-treated implant. Thus, the objective of this cross-sectional study was to estimate the validity of the Osstell ISQ system for assessing implant stability. Osstell ISQ was used to complete implant stability registers for 60 implants across 18 patients. Two distinct SmartPegs (types I and II) were used to complete six measurements on each implant, or three measurements in a row with each transducer. In the 1st, 2nd, and 3rdmeasurements with SmartPegs I and II, the average ISQ was 71.36, 71.31, and 71.65, and 71.02, 71.58, and 71.76, respectively. For SmartPegs I and II, equivalent values or variations below three ISQ points were found in 46.3% and 58.6% of the cases, respectively. Both SmartPegs had an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.96, and they also had repeatability and reproducibility of 0.96. An intra-class correlation coefficient analysis reveals nearly excellent repeatability and reproducibility for the RFA system Osstell ISQ. Measurements of Osstell ISQ have excellent repeatability.
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.