Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

The Correlation between Peri-implant Bone Density and the Biological Implant Stability: A Two Years Follow-up

Walid S. Salem, Mohamed R. Mahmoud, Wael M. Zakaria*, Yasser A. Araby

Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia

Abstract: Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between the peri-implant bone density and the biological stability around dental implants. Materials and Methods: A total of 56 implants were placed in the mandibular canine area of 28 patients to retain mandibular overdentures. The assessment of bone density changes was obtained through Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and the assessment of implant stability was obtained through Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) at loading time, and after 6, 12, 24 months. Results: RFA measurement showed a mean of 67.5± 5.8 ISQ at loading time and a mean of 71.3±5.5 ISQ after 24 months. Bone density around the implants showed a mean of 683.48±78.63 HU at loading time, and a mean of 722.24±58.4 HU after 24 months. These increases were statistically significant (p˂0.05). Conclusion: The biological implant stability as measured using the Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) and the peri-implant bone density as measured using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) showed a significant moderate positive correlation.

Keywords: biological stability, bone density, resonance frequency analysis, cone beam computed tomography

Citation: Walid S. Salem, Mohamed R. Mahmoud, Wael M. Zakaria, Yasser A. Araby, The Correlation between Peri-implant Bone Density and the Biological Implant Stability: A Two Years Follow-up. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research, 6 (2). 48-52. January 2018. doi:10.12691/ijdsr-6-2-6

1. Introduction

Dental implants are used routinely in clinical practice with great success. One of the challenges is to achieve a rapid osseointegration for loading implants with prosthetic elements. [1]

The success of implant treatment is closely related to bone quality of the implant recipient region [2]. Bone density is a concept that evaluates bone quality [3]. The mechanical competence of bone, which is referred to as bone quality in implant dentistry, comprises bone mass, structural properties, and material properties [4,5]. Consequently, greater failure of implants is likely associated with poor bone mineralization or limited bone resistance on tactile assessment while drilling [6,7].

Implant stability is a requisite characteristic of osseointegration which is also a measure of implant stability [8] which can occur at two different stages: primary stability, which mostly comes from mechanical engagement with cortical bone, and secondary stability, which offers biological stability through bone regeneration and remodeling [9]. Several studies have investigated implant stability during the healing period [10,11]. Implant stability (total stability) is not established in a linear fashion. After installation of implants, the primary mechanical stability decreases rapidly, whereas secondary biological stability increases slowly. This phenomenon has been termed a “dip” (or drop or gap) in stability [12,13].

Factors influencing primary stability are bone quantity and quality, surgical technique, including the skill of the surgeon and finally the implant (e.g.; geometry, length, diameter, and surface characteristics).Factors influencing secondary stability are primary stability, bone modeling and remodeling, and finally implant surface conditions [9].

The success of the implant treatment depends on the secondary implant stability occurred with the osseointegration. However, most of the studies assessing bone reaction around the implants are based on animal studies [14,15]. Due to ethical reasons, there is a lack of data about histological investigations of peri-implant bone in humans. Thus, secondary stability follow-ups of the implants were performed by Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) method. The healing process of the peri-implant bone, under different loading protocols, can also be evaluated radiologically by means of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) [16,17].

Quantitative methods for determining implant stability can yield valuable information regarding the success of dental implants [18]. In clinical situations, the osseointegration of implants can be assessed by non-invasive methods such as Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA). The principle is based on analysis of the frequency transduced by implants inserted into bone [19]. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) providing an “Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ)” has been used as a surrogate parameter to assess and monitor implant stability over time [20]. The ISQ values range from 1 to 100, where 100 signifies the highest degree of stability [21].

Radiographic analyses are commonly used in implant dentistry as an important diagnostic tool for treatment planning and follow-up [22,23]. These analyses correspond to bone quantity and quality evaluations [24,25] conducted during treatment planning, while during treatment follow-up, implant stability [18], marginal bone level and bone- implant contact could be applied [9,26]. Follow-up analysis aims to assess osseointegration and detect signs of failing integration at an early stage. Marginal bone loss and loss of bone-to-implant contact may indeed negatively influence implant success [27].

Today, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is increasingly replacing multislice CT (MSCT) in dentistry for evaluating mineralized tissues, because it provides adequate image quality associated with a lower exposure dose. Other advantages of CBCT are low cost, as compared with CT, fast scanning time and lower number of image artifacts [28]. Several authors have reported the use of CBCT intensity values as a measurement to assess bone density [29,30].

The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between the bone density measurements obtained by the CBCT in HU values and the biological stability measured by the RFA in ISQ values.

2. Materials and Methods

28 completely edentulous healthy patients (21 males &7 females) were selected with their age ranged from 46 to 64 years. Informed consents were obtained from all patients. Each patient received two implants in the mandibular canine area (Dentium Co, Korea) to retain mandibular overdenture. Under local anesthesia, conventional two-stage surgical protocol was performed after all necessary investigations. The follow up and evaluation consists of the followings:

2.1. Assessment of the Bone Density Changes

CBCT examination was performed as a follow up at loading time, and after 6, 12, 24 months using the Scanora® 3D machine, Sordex Co. Finland, applying the medium FOV (7.5cmx10cm).Operating parameters were 90 KV,4-12.5m A, scan time 10second, Isotropic voxel size 0.133mm.

Figure 1. Simulating the implant and adjusting its position in the 3 dimensions

Figure 2. Measuring the bone density around the simulated implants using the verification tool in Romaxis software

Bone density around the implants was measured using Romaxis-1 (4.4.1.R) software by inserting a simulated implant as the inserted implant and adjusted by the same dimensions and position as shown in (Figure 1) and then measure the bone density using the verification tool in the software as shown in (Figure 2).

2.2. Assessment of the Implant Stability Changes

The stability was measured for each implant at loading time, after 6, 12 and 24 months using Magnetic Resonance Frequency Analyzer [Osstell ISQ, Göteborg, Sweden]. Torque of 4-6 Ncm was used to secure the SmartPeg to the implant .The measurement probe was held close to the top of the SmartPeg until an audible sound was emitted ensuring sensation of SmartPeg and achieving the ISQ value. The measurement was started in the mesiodistal then in buccolingual direction.

The measurements were made three times in each direction to ensure reproducibility. The mean of these values was used for statistical analysis.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The collected data was tabulated and analyzed using the Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS) for windows ver. 21.

Repeated measure ANOVA was used to compare between the bone density and RFA readings at different follow up periods at loading, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months at significance level p<0.05.

Linear regression analysis was performed to the data set where bone density was the dependent variable and the RFA was the independent variable in order to establish a correlation between the ISQ reading and the Bone density. Analysis of variance (ANOVA test) was used to test the statistical significance of variance for the regression model at significance level p<0.05.

3. Results

Clinical assessment of implant stability using RFA measurement showed a mean of 67.5± 5.8 ISQ at loading time, a mean of 66.8±4 ISQ after 6months, a mean of 69.9±4.4 ISQ after 12 months, and a mean of 71.3±5.5 ISQ after 24 months. The repeated measure ANOVA test showed a statistical significant difference in the different follow up periods at loading, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months at significance level p<0.05. (Table 1)

Table 1. RFA measurement (ISQ values) at different follow up periods

Table 2. Bone density measurement (HU values) at different follow up periods

Table 3. Correlation between ISQ and HU values

Bone density around the implants measured radioghrapically using (CBCT) showed a mean of 683.48±78.63 HU at loading time, a mean of 654.88±45.94 HU after 6 months, a mean of 707.16±57.61HU after 12 months, and a mean of 722.24±58.4 HU after 24 months. The repeated measure ANOVA test showed a statistical significant difference at the different follow up periods at loading, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months at significance level p<0.05 (Table 2).

The correlation between RFA and bone density measurements showed a statistically significant moderate positive correlation between ISQ and HU values. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = 0.691, (p < 0.001), where density was the dependent variable and RFA was the independent variable. The coefficient of determination (R2) = 47.7 %, which is the proportion of the variation in density that can be accounted for variation in ISQ values, suggesting relatively moderate prediction accuracy. The square root of mean square error was about 48.5 HU. (Table 3).

4. Discussion

Misch et al; 2004 A, reported that a predictable long-term osseointergation had been reported after the two-stage surgical protocol established by Branemark for placement of implants in both completely and partially edentulous patients [31].

Salvi and Lang, 2004, stated that; the parameters routinely used to monitor oral implants during maintenance care should be of high sensitivity and/or specificity, easy to measure and should yield reproducible data [32]. Accordingly, the patients were scheduled for follow up after 6, 12, and 24 month of implants' placement and loading time to correlate between bone density measured radioghraphically and biological stability measured by RFA around the implants.

Ito et al, 2008, emphasized the importance of evaluating implant stability in clinical situations [33]. In this study, RFA was used as a quantitative method for measurement of implant stability and osseointegration [34] as it has reported to be evidence based [35] and then believed to be potential useful clinical tool for prevention, diagnosis, and prediction of implant failure and is helpful in the maintenance of viable implants [36]. Several clinical studies have demonstrated the reliability of this method to determine the time point to initiate loading [11]. Osstell® ISQ devices had been shown to be effective in detecting implant stability, distinguishing implants placed in different qualities of bone [33].

Molly, 2006, stated that the bone density seems to be of great importance not only in primary implant stability but also in the predictability of oral implant outcome [2]. Bone density measurements evaluated the percentages of mineralized bone in relation to the percentages of marrow cavities [37]. To obtain this knowledge, adequate radiographic examination is required [38]. In this study, CBCT was used to assess the bone density around the implants at loading time, after 6, 12and 24 months. The validity of CBCT in bone quality assessment has been studied broadly. The majority of these studies has focused on the bone density measurement and found CBCT a reliable modality for bone density measurement. Also a study of Paras, et al, 2015, demonstrated the reliability and validity of CBCT in bone quality assessment [39].

In this study the RFA measurements showed a mean of 67.5±5.8 ISQ at loading time reaching a mean of 69.9±4.4 ISQ after 12 months, then increasing to a mean of 71.3±5.5 ISQ after 24 months. This significant increase in stability is most likely due to bone formation/remodeling and an increased stiffness of the bone. This results is in agreement with Ersanli et al, 2005, who stated that ISQ values for successfully osseointegrated implants have been reported to vary from 57 to 82 ISQ, with a mean of 69 ISQ after 1 year of loading [40].

In this study the bone density measurements around the implants showed a value of 683.48±78.63 HU at loading time reaching a value of 722.24±58.4 HU after 24 months. This significant increase in bone density around the implants was in agreement with Gotfredsen et al, 2001, who reported that continuous loads on implants resulted in increased bone density [41].

The result of this study showed a significant moderate positive correlation between RFA measurements and bone density measurements from loading time up to 24 months as the loading of dental implants increases the stability of implants and mineralization of peri-implant bone. This result is in agreement with other studies which reported that RFA was a reliable tool for the assessment of implant stability and ISQ value significantly correlated with other implant stability parameters such as bone density [42,43].

Some factors can affect implant stability and ISQ recordings such as bone shape of the implant, thread design, surface treatment, surgical technique and the experience of the surgeon [44]. In this study, all of the factors that have the possibility to affect ISQ recordings were standardized by using the same region (mandibular canine area), standard surgical technique and by correlating the RFA reading with bone density measurements around the same implants in the same patient through the 24 months evaluation period. Thus, ISQ values were a valuable and reliable tool to indicate the degree of implant stability objectively.

5. Conclusion

Within the limitation of this study, the biological implant stability as measured using the Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) and the peri-implant bone density as measured using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) showed a significant moderate positive correlation.

Acknowledgements

The authors of this study would like to thank Dr.Ramy Elmoazen for his assistance and cooperation in conducting this research.

References

[1]   | Le Guehennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dental materials: official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials. 2007; 23(7): 844-54.
[2]   | Molly L. Bone density and primary stability in implant therapy. Clinical oral implants research. 2006; 17 Suppl 2: 124-35.
[3]   | Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. European journal of oral sciences. 1998; 106(3): 721-64.
[4]   | Felsenberg D, Boonen S. The bone quality framework: determinants of bone strength and their interrelationships, and implications for osteoporosis management. Clinical therapeutics. 2005; 27(1): 1-11.
[5]   | Bouxsein ML. Bone quality: where do we go from here? Osteoporosis international: a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 2003;14 Suppl 5: S118-27.
[6]   | Friberg B, Sennerby L, Linden B, Grondahl K, Lekholm U. Stability measurements of one-stage Branemark implants during healing in mandibles. A clinical resonance frequency analysis study. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 1999; 28(4): 266-72.
[7]   | van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, Molly L, Jacobs R. Impact of systemic diseases and medication on osseointegration. Periodontology 2000. 2003; 33: 163-71.
[8]   | Sennerby L, Roos J. Surgical determinants of clinical success of osseointegrated oral implants: a review of the literature. The International journal of prosthodontics. 1998; 11(5): 408-20.
[9]   | Atsumi M, Park SH, Wang HL. Methods used to assess implant stability: current status. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2007; 22(5): 743-54.
[10]   | Zhou W, Han C, Yunming L, Li D, Song Y, Zhao Y. Is the osseointegration of immediately and delayed loaded implants the same?--comparison of the implant stability during a 3-month healing period in a prospective study. Clinical oral implants research. 2009; 20(12): 1360-6.
[11]   | Simunek A, Kopecka D, Brazda T, Strnad I, Capek L, Slezak R. Development of implant stability during early healing of immediately loaded implants. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2012; 27(3): 619-27.
[12]   | Lai HC, Zhang ZY, Wang F, Zhuang LF, Liu X. Resonance frequency analysis of stability on ITI implants with osteotome sinus floor elevation technique without grafting: a 5-month prospective study. Clinical oral implants research. 2008; 19(5): 469-75.
[13]   | Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. A 24-week prospective study comparing the stability of titanium dioxide grit-blasted dental implants with and without fluoride treatment. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2009; 24(4): 684-8.
[14]   | Barone A, Ricci M, Calvo-Guirado JL, Covani U. Bone remodelling after regenerative procedures around implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in Beagle dogs. Clinical oral implants research. 2011; 22(10): 1131-7.
[15]   | Mano T, Ishikawa K, Harada K, Umeda H, Ueyama Y. Comparison of apatite-coated titanium prepared by blast coating and flame spray methods--evaluation using simulated body fluid and initial histological study. Dental materials journal. 2011; 30(4): 431-7.
[16]   | Hasan I, Dominiak M, Blaszczyszyn A, Bourauel C, Gedrange T, Heinemann F. Radiographic evaluation of bone density around immediately loaded implants. Annals of anatomy = Anatomischer Anzeiger: official organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft. 2015; 199: 52-7.
[17]   | Barone A, Covani U, Cornelini R, Gherlone E. Radiographic bone density around immediately loaded oral implants. Clinical oral implants research. 2003; 14(5): 610-5.
[18]   | Meredith N. Assessment of implant stability as a prognostic determinant. The International journal of prosthodontics. 1998; 11(5): 491-501.
[19]   | Meredith N, Alleyne D, Cawley P. Quantitative determination of the stability of the implant-tissue interface using resonance frequency analysis. Clinical oral implants research. 1996; 7(3): 261-7.
[20]   | Sennerby L, Meredith N. Implant stability measurements using resonance frequency analysis: biological and biomechanical aspects and clinical implications. Periodontology 2000. 2008; 47: 51-66.
[21]   | Glauser R, Sennerby L, Meredith N, Ree A, Lundgren A, Gottlow J, et al. Resonance frequency analysis of implants subjected to immediate or early functional occlusal loading. Successful vs. failing implants. Clinical oral implants research. 2004; 15(4): 428-34.
[22]   | Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant dentistry. 2008; 17(1): 5-15.
[23]   | Vercruyssen M, Jacobs R, Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D. The use of CT scan based planning for oral rehabilitation by means of implants and its transfer to the surgical field: a critical review on accuracy. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2008; 35(6): 454-74.
[24]   | Turkyilmaz I, Tozum TF, Tumer C, Ozbek EN. Assessment of correlation between computerized tomography values of the bone, and maximum torque and resonance frequency values at dental implant placement. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2006; 33(12): 881-8.
[25]   | Song YD, Jun SH, Kwon JJ. Correlation between bone quality evaluated by cone-beam computerized tomography and implant primary stability. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2009; 24(1): 59-64.
[26]   | Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Michiels K, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D. A biomechanical assessment of the relation between the oral implant stability at insertion and subjective bone quality assessment. Journal of clinical periodontology. 2007; 34(4): 359-66.
[27]   | Snauwaert K, Duyck J, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, Naert I. Time dependent failure rate and marginal bone loss of implant supported prostheses: a 15-year follow-up study. Clinical oral investigations. 2000; 4(1): 13-20.
[28]   | Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology. 2009; 30(6): 1088-95.
[29]   | Naitoh M, Aimiya H, Hirukawa A, Ariji E. Morphometric analysis of mandibular trabecular bone using cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2010; 25(6): 1093-8.
[30]   | Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, Sogo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clinical oral implants research. 2012; 23(7): 832-6.
[31]   | Misch CE, Wang HL, Misch CM, Sharawy M, Lemons J, Judy KW. Rationale for the application of immediate load in implant dentistry: Part I. Implant dentistry. 2004; 13(3): 207-17.
[32]   | Salvi GE, Lang NP. Diagnostic parameters for monitoring peri-implant conditions. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2004; 19 Suppl: 116-27.
[33]   | Ito Y, Sato D, Yoneda S, Ito D, Kondo H, Kasugai S. Relevance of resonance frequency analysis to evaluate dental implant stability: simulation and histomorphometrical animal experiments. Clinical oral implants research. 2008; 19(1): 9-14.

[34]  
da Cunha HA, Francischone CE, Filho HN, de Oliveira RC. A comparison between cutting torque and resonance frequency in the assessment of primary stability and final torque capacity of standard and TiUnite single-tooth implants under immediate loading. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2004; 19(4): 578-85

[35]   | Becker W, Sennerby L, Bedrossian E, Becker BE, Lucchini JP. Implant stability measurements for implants placed at the time of extraction: a cohort, prospective clinical trial. Journal of periodontology. 2005; 76(3): 391-7.
[36]   | Sjostrom M, Lundgren S, Nilson H, Sennerby L. Monitoring of implant stability in grafted bone using resonance frequency analysis. A clinical study from implant placement to 6 months of loading. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2005; 34(1): 45-51.
[37]   | Barros RR, Novaes AB, Jr., Papalexiou V, Souza SL, Taba M, Jr., Palioto DB, et al. Effect of biofunctionalized implant surface on osseointegration: a histomorphometric study in dogs. Brazilian dental journal. 2009; 20(2): 91-8.
[38]   | Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Dus I, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2005; 20(3): 416-24.
[39]   | Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT. Clinical oral implants research. 2015; 26(1): e1-7.
[40]   | Ersanli S, Karabuda C, Beck F, Leblebicioglu B. Resonance frequency analysis of one-stage dental implant stability during the osseointegration period. Journal of periodontology. 2005; 76(7): 1066-71.
[41]   | Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants with different surface characteristics subjected to static load. A study in the dog (II). Clinical oral implants research. 2001; 12(3): 196-201.
[42]   | Salimov F, Tatli U, Kurkcu M, Akoglan M, Oztunc H, Kurtoglu C. Evaluation of relationship between preoperative bone density values derived from cone beam computed tomography and implant stability parameters: a clinical study. Clinical oral implants research. 2014; 25(9): 1016-21.
[43]   | Tatli U, Salimov F, Kurkcu M, Akoglan M, Kurtoglu C. Does cone beam computed tomography-derived bone density give predictable data about stability changes of immediately loaded implants?: A 1-year resonance frequency follow-up study. The Journal of craniofacial surgery. 2014; 25(3): e293-9.
[44]   | Huang H, Wismeijer D, Shao X, Wu G. Mathematical evaluation of the influence of multiple factors on implant stability quotient values in clinical practice: a retrospective study. Therapeutics and clinical risk management. 2016; 12: 1525-32.