LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 24 , Issue 6
November/December 2009

Pages 1006–1014


Quantifying the Influence of Bone Density and Thickness on Resonance Frequency Analysis: An In Vitro Study of Biomechanical Test Materials

Thibaut Bardyn, PhD/Philippe Gédet, Dipl Ing/Wock Hallermann, MD, DDS/Philippe Büchler, PhD


PMID: 20162104

Purpose: Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) offers the opportunity to monitor the osseointegration of an implant in a simple, noninvasive way. A better comprehension of the relationship between RFA and parameters related to bone quality would therefore help clinicians improve diagnoses. In this study, a bone analog made from polyurethane foam was used to isolate the influences of bone density and cortical thickness in RFA. Materials and Methods: Straumann standard implants were inserted in polyurethane foam blocks, and primary implant stability was measured with RFA. The blocks were composed of two superimposed layers with different densities. The top layer was dense to mimic cortical bone, whereas the bottom layer had a lower density to represent trabecular bone. Different densities for both layers and different thicknesses for the simulated cortical layer were tested, resulting in eight different block combinations. RFA was compared with two other mechanical evaluations of primary stability: removal torque and axial loading response. Results: The primary stability measured with RFA did not correlate with the two other methods, but there was a significant correlation between removal torque and the axial loading response (P < .005). Statistical analysis revealed that each method was sensitive to different aspects of bone quality. RFA was the only method able to detect changes in both bone density and cortical thickness. However, changes in trabecular bone density were easier to distinguish with removal torque and axial loading than with RFA. Conclusions: This study shows that RFA, removal torque, and axial loading are sensitive to different aspects of the bone-implant interface. This explains the absence of correlation among the methods and proves that no standard procedure exists for the evaluation of primary stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:1006–1014


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help