ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2025
Comparative analysis of novel damping capacity analysis devices for assessing implant stability in clinical practice.
Article in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeImplant stability testing is crucial for verifying osseointegration before prosthetic loading. Several methods have been developed to assess osseointegration. Among these, damping capacity analysis (DCA) devices offer a user-friendly and non-invasive approach. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy and reliability of newly available DCA devices in assessing dental implant stability.
methodsThis study included 58 implants from 37 patients over a 1-month period. Three measurements per implant were obtained with healing abutments in place, following the manufacturers' guidelines, using the DCA-P (Periotest M, Medizintechnik Gulden), DCA-A (Anycheck, Neobiotech), and DCA-T (The Trust, Dentium) devices. Factors such as healing abutment height, time since placement, bone grafting, fixture diameter, and fixture length were evaluated. Accuracy was assessed using DCA-P as the reference, and reproducibility was statistically analyzed using 3 measurements per implant. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS Statistics 23.0 (IBM Corp.).
resultsAll implants that passed the stability tests using DCA devices were restored with definitive prostheses and showed no signs of early failure. The DCA-A value demonstrated a very strong correlation with the DCA-P value (DCAV-P), whereas the DCA-T value exhibited only a moderate correlation with DCAV-P. DCA-P also showed the highest reliability, followed by DCA-A and then DCA-T. The reliability of DCA-A and DCA-T was not significantly affected by any of the assessed factors; in contrast, DCA-P's reliability was significantly influenced by arch location and specific quadrant position.
conclusionsWith DCA-P as the reference, DCA-A demonstrated superior accuracy compared to DCA-T. Although DCA-P exhibited the highest reliability, its performance was significantly affected by the positional factors of the target implant.
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.