Youssef et al.

The Correlation Between Bone Density and Implant Stability

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BONE DENSITY

AND IMPLANT STABILITY
Youssef M1 BDS, Shaaban A M2 PhD, Eldibany R2 PhD.
Abstract:
Introduction: Long-term studies have documented the successful treatment of edentulous and partially edentulous patients with endosseous
titanium implants. Success rates between 81% and 93% have been reported. Successful treatment with endosseous implants is dependent upon a
complex relationship of numerous factors. Bone density and implant stability are important factors for implant osseointegration which has been
widely demonstrated by several authors.
Objectives: This study was designed to evaluate the correlation between bone density estimated by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)
and stability of dental implants estimated by resonance frequency analysis using Osstell ISQ.
Materials and methods: Ten dentis s-clean tapered implants were inserted in posterior mandibular edentulous spaces in ten adult patients. The
bone density of implants recipient sites were determined by density value (HU) using CBCT. And the implants’ stability were determined by
quantitative unit called implant stability quotient (ISQ) measured by resonance frequency analysis using Osstell ISQ. Both values were determined
immediately post-operatively and on intervals of 3&6 months.
Results: The mean implant stability value was 67.3 ± 9.14 immediately post-operatively, then increased on the 3rd month to be 72.3 ± 3.95 & 75.2
± 5.33 on the 6th month, there was a statistical significant increase. Also the results of the present study showed that the mean bone density value
was 827.96 ± 206.85 immediately post-operatively, then increased to 890.67 ± 138 & 1018.0 ± 149.79 on the 3rd and 6th months respectively, there
was a statistical significant increase.
Conclusion: There was no correlation between bone density and implant stability.
Keywords: bone density, implant stability, cone beam CT, resonance frequency analysis..
----------------------------------------------------
1- Dentist, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt.
2- Professor at Department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt.

INTRODUCTION Various methods were used for implant stability testing

Osseointegrated dental implants have become an important such as histomorphologic research, tensional test, push-
therapeutic modality since the last decade with success rates out/pull-out test and removal torque test, which are
ranging between 90%-95% in healthy patients. Still failures classified as destructive methods. Non-destructive methods
of up to 10% are still encountered. In general, these failure include percussion test, cutting torque test while placing
rates have been associated with poor bone quality and/or implants, Periotest® (Siemens AG, Benshein, Germany),
quantity and lack of stability of the implant (1-3). and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) (14).
Bone quality can improve around a functional Resonance frequency analysis has been introduced to
osseointegrated dental implant due to the positive bone provide an objective measurement of implant primary
stimulation, the more bone that is present at an implant site, stability and to monitor implant stability over the healing
the better the possibility for implant success. Bone quality period using Osstell ISQ (10, 15-18).
can be described by factors other than bone density such as This study was designed to evaluate the correlation
skeletal size, the architecture and 3-dimensional orientation between bone density estimated by Cone-Beam Computed
of the trabeculea, matrix properties, mineralization and Tomography (CBCT) and stability of dental implants
structure (3, 4). estimated by resonance frequency analysis using Osstell
Several approaches such as densitometric ISQ.
measurements, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry,
computerized tomography (CT) and dental cone-beam CT In MATERIALS AND METHODS
the last years, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) A clinical trial was conducted on ten adult patients of both
became widely used for oral and maxillofacial imaging sexes (6 males and 4 females) having missing mandibular
providing a good spatial resolution, gray density range, and posterior teeth indicated for implant rehabilitation. The
contrast, as well as a good pixel/noise ratio (5-8). patients were selected from the Out Patient Clinic of the
Implant stability is a combination of mechanical and Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of
biological stability; mechanical stability is the result of Dentistry, Alexandria University.
compression of bone tissue during implantation (primary The inclusion criteria of this study were; patients’ age
stability), while biological stability is the result of newly ranging from 20-50 years, adequate vertical distance
formed bone cells, which are created on the implant surface between the alveolar crest and the inferior alveolar canal to
during the osseointegration process (secondary stability) (9-13). accommodate a minimum 8 mm length implants and good

15
Alexandria Dental Journal. (2015) Vol.40 Pages:15-21
 Youssef et al. The Correlation Between Bone Density and Implant Stability

oral hygiene. While the exclusion criteria were; inadequate 2.2 mm, the osteotomy was then widened using an
interocclusal space, parafunctional habits such as bruxism intermediate drill and the final drill according to the
and clenching, uncontrolled systemic diseases such as diameter of the implant, the implant was then threaded into
uncontrolled diabetes and osteoporosis, chemotherapy or the bone using a Ratchet, the SmartPeg™ was attached to
radiotherapy and heavy smokers. the dental implant, the implant stability was measured by
The dentis system implants (Dentis s-clean tapered Osstell ISQ then the cover screw was placed, and the flap
system, Woram-Dong, Dalseo-Gu, Daegu, Korea) with was sutured around the fixtures using 3/0 black silk suture.
different diameters (3.7, 4.1 and 4.8 mm) and lengths (8, 10, (Fig 2)
12 and 14 mm) were used in this study, and Osstell ISQ All patients were advised to apply cold packs extra
was used for measurement of implant stability. orally intermittently every 10 minutes for 2 hours on the
Osstell ISQ (Osstell AB, stampgatan, Goteborg, first day, chlorohexidine mouth wash was started on the 2nd
Sweden) consists of Osstell ISQ instrument, probe, charger, post-operative day 3 times daily for 2 weeks, the sutures
USB cable and test peg. were removed after one week post surgically. Antibiotic
The system includes the use of a SmartPeg™ attached (Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 1 gm tab), 2 times daily for 5
to the dental implant by means of an integrated screw. The days, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen 400
SmartPeg is excited by a magnetic pulse from the mg , EIPICO, 10th of Ramadan city, Egypt), 3 times daily
measurement probe on the handheld instrument. The for 3 days were given.
resonance frequency, which is the measure of implant All patients were evaluated immediately post-
stability, is calculated from the response signal. Results are operatively and on intervals of 3 & 6 months, for presence
displayed on the instrument as the implant Stability Quotient of pain, swelling or infection using Visual Analogue Scale
(ISQ), which is scaled from 1 to 100. The higher the value, (VAS) (19), gingival inflammation using the Löe and
the more stable the implant. Silness Gingival Index (20) on the 2nd and 7th post-
All patients underwent pre-operative clinical operative days and implant mobility was tested according to
examination: Patients’ data were collected; name, gender Mickney and Koth (21), then the implant stability
and age, medical and dental histories were taken and the oral measurement was examined at the time of insertion and on
mucosa of the edentulous area was examined for color, intervals of 3 and 6 months postoperatively using the
texture, firmness and thickness. Also all patients underwent Resonance Frequency Analysis via the Osstell ISQ system.
pre-operative panoramic radiograph examination to All the implants involved in this study were
determine the size of the implants, their relation to adjacent radiographed by CBCT immediately post operatively and on
structures, to measure the amount of vertical height of bone intervals of 3 & 6 months to assess the bone density around
above the mandibular canal, and to evaluate the condition of the implants, exposure was performed using “veraviewepocs
bone. (Fig 1) 3D R100” at 8 MA, 90 KV and at a proper field of view.
Densitometric analysis was performed around dental
implants on CBCT image at these 3 time intervals using the
“Ondemand 3D”software supplied with the previously
mentioned machine. This analysis gives the actual bone
density around the immersed dental implant that proves the
process of osseointegration. (Fig 3)
Final prosthesis (porcelain fused to metal crown) was
placed after three months.
The statistical analysis was performed to evaluate the
correlation between bone density values and ISQ values
immediately post-operative and on intervals of 3 and 6
months.

RESULTS
Fig. (1): Preoperative panoramic radiograph showing missing Ten implants were placed in a total of ten patients (4
mandibular right. females and 6 males) having missing mandibular posterior
teeth were included in this study. Their ages ranged between
Preoperative oral antibiotic one hour before surgery was 20 and 50 years with mean age of 35 years. They were
given (Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 2 gm) and 0.12% selected from the Outpatient Clinic of the Oral and
chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash was used to rinse for Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry,
30 seconds before operation. Alexandria University. All patients had undergone surgical
With the patient under local anesthesia a full thickness procedures for delayed implant placement and loading. All
mucoperiosteal envelope flap was raised , surgical stent was patients were followed up both clinically and
fitted in the patients’ mouth, osteotomy was carried out in radiographically for 6 months.
the central part of the alveolar bone, the initial marking or All patients had been operated under local anesthesia
preparation of the implant site was done with a pilot drill of using surgical flap technique and implant placement, and no

16
Alexandria Dental Journal. (2015) Vol.40 Pages:15-21
 Youssef et al. The Correlation Between Bone Density and Implant Stability

a a b

b c
Fig. (3): CBCT image of the implant taken (a) immediately post
operatively (b) 3rd month postoperatively and (c) 6th
month postoperatively

complications had been recorded during the operation.

All patients had been examined periodically during the
follow-up period up to 6 months. Healing was uneventful in
all cases with no post-operative complications. Other
clinical parameters had been recorded such as: Pain index,
gingival index, implant mobility and Implant Stability.
c 1) Pain, tenderness, infection and/or swelling after
surgery; all patients experienced slight to mild pain at the
surgical site. Four had slight pain and showed mild oedema
which subsided totally by the 2nd post-operative day. Two
others had mild pain and mild oedema which also
disappeared completely by the 2nd post-operative day. Four
patients experienced mild pain and moderate edema, which
subsided totally by the 4th post-operative day. All patients
continued the follow up period without any signs of
infection, gingivitis, or peri-implantitis.
2) Gingival Index; no signs of gingival inflammation
were observed in all patients. (i.e. gingival index score was 0)
3) Implant mobility; all over the evaluation period,
none of the implants showed any signs of mobility (i.e.
d mobility score was 0).
4) Implant Stability Evaluation; immediately post-
Fig. (2): A photograph showing the implant placement surgical operative, the mean implant stability value was 67.3 ± 9.14
procedures and implant stability measurement. (that value is known as primary stability) with a minimum
(a) mucoperiostal envelope flap reflection. (b) intermediate recorded value of 56.0 and a maximum recorded value of
drill. (c) measurement displayed on the portable instrument 83.0. On the third month, the mean implant stability value
screen. (d) cover screw. was 72.3 ± 3.95 with a minimum recorded value of 65.0 and
17
Alexandria Dental Journal. (2015) Vol.40 Pages:15-21
 Youssef et al. The Correlation Between Bone Density and Implant Stability

a maximum recorded value of 78.0. On the sixth month, the On the sixth month, the mean peri-implant bone density
mean implant stability value was 75.2 ± 5.33 with a value for the study group was 1018.0 ± 149.79 with a
minimum recorded value of 63.0 and a maximum recorded minimum recorded value of 805.85 and a maximum
value of 81.0. recorded value of 1218.14.
The mean implant stability on the 3rd postoperative The mean bone density on the 3rd postoperative month
month showed no significant difference when compared showed no significant difference when compared with the
with the immediate postoperative measurements (p = 0.06). immediate postoperative measurements (p = 0.151). While,
While, the mean implant stability was statistically the mean bone density was statistically significant on the 6th
significant on the 6th month postoperatively when compared month postoperatively when compared to the immediate
with the immediate postoperative measurements (p = 0.01). postoperative measurements (p <0.001). Also, the mean
Also, the mean implant stability was statistically significant bone density was statistically significant on the 6th month
on the 6th month postoperatively when compared with the 3rd postoperatively when compared with the 3rd month
month postoperative measurements (p = 0.01). (Table 1, Fig 4) postoperative measurements (p = 0.001). (Table 2, Fig 5)

After
80 Immediate 3 Months 6 Months
BD
573.42 – 1174.53 715.38 – 1123.0 805.85 ± 1218.14
70
Min. – Max.
827.96 ± 206.85 890.67 ± 138.31 1018.0 ± 149.79
60 Mean ± SD.
817.01 857.22 1017.25
Median
Mean of IS

50
p1 0.151 <0.001*
40 p2 0.001*
30
Table (2): Comparison between the different studied periods
20
according to bone density
10

0
Immediate 3 Months 6 Months
1200
After
1000
Fig. (4): Comparison between the different studied
periods according to implant stability. 800
Mean of BD

After 600
Immediate 3 Months 6 Months
400
IS
Min. – Max. 56.0 – 83.0 65.0 – 78.0 63.0 – 81.0 200

Mean ± SD. 67.30 ± 9.14 72.30 ± 3.95 75.20 ± 5.33

0
Median 66.50 72.50 76.50 Immediate 3 Months 6 Months

p1 0.064 0.014* After

p2 0.012* Fig. (5): Comparison between the different studied periods
Table (1): Comparison between the different studied periods according to bone density
according to implant stability.
p1: P value for paired t-test for comparing between Correlation between implant stability and bone density:
immediate post-operative period and after 3 months and The analysis of the effect of bone density on the implant
6 months. stability showed that there was no statistically significant
p2: P value for paired t-test for comparing between 3rd relationship between the implant stability and bone density
and 6th months post-operatively. in any of the follow-up periods (p=0.62, p=0.19, p=0.37).
*: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05 . (Table 3)

5) Radiographic evaluation; evaluation of bone density DISCUSSION

around the implants immediately post-operative, the mean The successful treatment of dental implants depends on the
peri-implant bone density value was 827.96 ± 206.85 with a concept of osseointegration introduced by Branemark which
minimum recorded value of 573.42 and a maximum implies the structural and functional contact between the
recorded value of 1174.53. implant and the surrounding vital bone (22). Bone density
On the third month, the mean peri-implant bone density and implant stability are important factors for implant
value was 890.67 ± 138.31 with a minimum recorded value osseointegration which has been widely demonstrated by
of 715.38 and a maximum recorded value of 1123.0. several authors (23).

18
Alexandria Dental Journal. (2015) Vol.40 Pages:15-21
 Youssef et al. The Correlation Between Bone Density and Implant Stability

BD vs IS apposition at the implant-bone interface (15, 27-31).

r p Meredith et al (15, 32) concluded that RFA is a method
Immediate -0.179 0.620 that can serve as a useful research technique and it is
3 Months -0.446 0.196 valuable in studying the behavior of implants in surrounding
6 Months -0.313 0.379 tissue. Also, Jaramillo et al in 2014 (33) reported that
Table (3): Correlation between Bone density and implant stability. Resonance frequency analysis systems in Osstell Mentor
r: Pearson coefficient *: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05 and Osstell ISQ show almost perfect reproducibility,
BD: Bone density repeatability and accuracy.
In this study the mean implant stability value was 67.3
Therefore, the present study was designed to evaluate ± 9.14 immediately post-operatively, then increased on the
the correlation between the bone density and the stability of 3rd month to be 72.3 ± 3.95 & 75.2 ± 5.33 on the 6th month
dental implants in the posterior region of the mandible. there was a statistical significant increase.
In this study 10 patients with missing mandibular These results are in agreement with Huwiler et al in
posterior teeth were selected from the Outpatient Clinic of 2007 (34), where they studied the resonance frequency
the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of analysis (RFA) during the early phases of healing. They
Dentistry, Alexandria University. The selected patients were concluded that during the incorporation and healing phase of
free from any uncontrolled systemic diseases or conditions the implants, the mean values for the various observation
that may complicate the surgical procedure or the healing periods the ISQ values seemed to increase.
process of the implant. This was following a study Also, the surface treatment of the implant had a role in
performed by Bornstein et al in 2009 (24) where they the increase of the ISQ value in the present study during the
reviewed whether systemic diseases with/without systemic healing period. All the implants placed are resorbable blast
medications increased the risk of implant failure and media (RBM) treated, in which the surface of the implant is
therefore diminish the success and survival rates of dental blasted with calcium phosphate powder in order to increase
implants. They stated that the level of evidence indicative of cohesion of bone tissue, followed by thorough cleaning of
absolute and relative contraindications for implant therapy the surface.
due to systemic diseases is low. This is accordance with Glauser et al in 2007 (35),
CBCT was used to measure the bone density because of where they reported that implant design and surface
its accuracy, lower radiation exposure and fewer cost treatment have a significant influence on soft bone.
compared with CT .This was following a study performed Also, this is agreement with Kim et al in 2010 (36)
by Cassetta et al in 2014 (25) where they scanned twenty where they evaluated the effects of different implant surface
dry mandibles with CBCT and conventional CT to evaluate treatments on implant stability in dog mandibles. A total of
if there is a statistically significant difference between the 30 implants were placed in 5 dog mandibles. Bone quality
bone density values they produce, defined as gray density was assessed at each site. An Osstell resonance frequency
values and to determine any correlation between them. They analyzer (RFA) was used to determine the stability at
concluded that the lower radiation dose and reduced costs of different periods after surgery. The results of this study
CBCT make this a useful substitute for CT, however, they suggested that surface treatments may have significant
stated that in order to more accurately define the bone effects on the biological stability.
density with CBCT, a conversion ratio needs to be applied In this study, the analysis of the effect of bone density
to the voxel value. on the implant stability showed that there was no
In this study, the mean bone density increased statistically significant relationship between these two
significantly towards the 6th month post-operative. This can factors throughout the study period.
be attributed to the healing of the bone around implants. These findings agreed with the results of Huwiler et al
These results were in agreement with the results of Al- in 2007 (34), when analyzing the morphologic
Sudani in 2014 (26). In her study, twenty implants in the characteristics of the parent bone into which the implants
premolar and molar regions of upper and lower jaws were were placed, no correlations could be demonstrated between
evaluated using CT scan to measure the bone density by the ISQ values and the bone volume density and/or the bone
using HU around dental implants and after six months after trabecular connectivity as revealed by micro CT analysis of
dental implant placement. The mean HU of jaw bone bone cores obtained at the time of implant installation
immediately following implant placement was 552.28 HU Moreover, Farre- Pages et al in 2010 (37), studied the
and increased significantly to 761.33 HU after six months relation between the bone quality and primary stability and
statistically. they concluded that there was no relation between the ISQ
Implant stability was measured using the Resonance value and bone quality.
Frequency Analysis (RFA) via the Osstell ISQ system. RFA On the other hand, Turkyilmaz et al in 2007 (38)
was chosen as a noninvasive and reliable method to assess reported that the bone density value from pre-operative CT
variation in implant stability over time. RFA registrations examination may provide an objective assessment of bone
are directly related to the stability of the implant in the quality and significant correlations between bone density
surrounding bone: during healing an increase in implant and implant stability parameters may help clinician to
stability quotient (ISQ) values presumably reflect new bone predict primary stability before implant insertion.

19
Alexandria Dental Journal. (2015) Vol.40 Pages:15-21
 Youssef et al. The Correlation Between Bone Density and Implant Stability

Also, Sumera et al in 2013 (39) stated that positive review of the literature. Dental Cadmos 2009; 77: 19-40.
correlation between RFA values and bone density was found 7. Calasso S, Cassetta M, Galluccio G, Barbato E.
for all four regions of the jaws. Impacted lower second molars. Dental Cadmos 2008; 76: 41-54.
Moreover, Salimov et al in 2014 (40) reported that bone 8. Cassetta M, Tarantino F, Calasso S. CAD-CAM systems
density assessment using CBCT is an efficient method and in titanium customized abutment construction. Dental
significantly correlated with implant stability parameters Cadmos 2010; 78: 27-44.
and Lekholm and Zarb index. Thus, it is possible to predict 9. Sennerby L, Meredith N. Resonance frequency analysis:
initial implant stability and possibility of immediate or early measuring implant stability and osseointegration.
loading using CBCT scans prior to implant placement. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1998; 19: 493-8.
The contradiction between the results of the above 10. Friberg B, Sennerby L, Linden B, Grondahl K, Lekholm
studies and this study may be attributed to the use of a U. Stability measurements of one-stage Branemark
higher number of implants with minimum 57 implants, but implants during healing in mandibles. A clinical
in this study only 10 implants were used. Also, in their resonance frequency analysis study. Int J Oral
studies they used more than one type of bone according to Maxillofac Surg 1999; 28: 266-72.
Lekholm and Zarb classification, but in this study only one 11. Sunden S, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG. Accuracy and
region of the mandible was selected. In addition, in their precision in the radiographic diagnosis of clinical
studies they correlated the bone density with primary instability in Branemark dental implants. Clin Oral
stability only, but in this study we correlated the bone Implants Res 1995; 6: 220-6.
density with primary implant stability and secondary 12. Quesada-Garcia MP, Prados-Sanchez E, Olmedo-Gaya
implant stability on intervals of 3 and 6 months. MV, Munoz-Soto E, Gonzalez-Rodriguez MP,
Vallecillo-Capilla M. Measurement of dental implant
CONCLUSIONS stability by resonance frequency analysis: A review of
There is no correlation between bone density and implant the literature. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2009; 14:
stability, using cone beam computed tomography is a simple 538-46.
method to measure bone density around dental implants 13. Esposito M, Hirsch J, Lekholm U, Thomsen P.
and evaluate the condition of bone before implant placement Biological factors contributing to failures of
and resonance frequency analysis is a reliable method to osseointegrated oral implants, (I). Success criteria and
predict bone healing around implants and to measure epidemiology. Eur J Oral Sci 1998; 106: 527-51.
implant stability throughout the follow up period. There is 14. Meredith N. Assessment of implant stability as a
no correlation between bone density and implant stability. prognostic determinant. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11: 491-501.
15. Meredith N, Book K, Friberg B, Jemt T, Sennerby L.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST Resonance frequency measurements of implant stability in
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest vivo. A crosssectional and longitudinal study of
resonance frequency measurements on implants in the
INFORMED CONSENT edentulous and partially dentate maxilla. Clin Oral Implants
Appropriate institutional ethical clearance and written Res 1997; 8: 226-333.
informed consent were obtained. 16. Meredith N, Shagaldi F, Alleyne D, Sennerby L, Cawley
P. The application of resonance frequency measurements
REFERENCES to study the stability of titanium implants during healing
1. Att W, Stappert C. Implant therapy to improve quality of in the rabbit tibia. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997; 8: 234-
life. Quintessence Int 2003; 34: 8: 573-81. 43.
2. Vidyasagar L, Apse P. Dental implant design and 17. Rasmusson L, Kahnberg KE, Tan A. Effects of implant
biological effects on bone-implant interface. design and surface on bone regeneration and implant
Stomatologija 2004; 6: 51-4. stability: an experimental study in the dog mandible.
3. Gulsahi A. Bone quality assessment for dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001; 3: 2-8.
Rijeka: InTech 2011: 437-52. 18. Bischof M, Nedir R, Szmukler-Moncler S, Bernard JP,
4. Marquezan M, Osório A, Sant'Anna E, Souza MM, Maia Samson J. Implant stability measurement of delayed and
L. Does bone mineral density influence the primary immediately loaded implants during healing. Clin Oral
stability of dental im¬plants? A systematic review. Clin Implants Res 2004; 15: 529-39
Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 767-74. 19. Boonstra AM, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Reneman MF,
5. Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Avsever H, Özdemir T. Posthumus JB, Stewart RE. Reliability and validity of
Conventional multi-slice computed tomography (CT) the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with
and cone-beam CT (CBCT) for computer assisted chronic musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res 2008;
implant placement. Part I: relationship of radiographic 31: 165-9.
gray density and implant stability. Clin Implant Dent 20. McClanahan SF, Bartizek RD, Biesbrock AR.
Relat Res 2013; 15: 893-906. Identification and consequences of distinct Löe-Silness
6. Cassetta M, Tarantino F, Calasso S. Conservative gingival index examiner styles for the clinical
treatment of odontogenic keratocyst: A case report and assessment of gingivitis. J Periodontol 2001; 72: 383-92.

20
Alexandria Dental Journal. (2015) Vol.40 Pages:15-21
 Youssef et al. The Correlation Between Bone Density and Implant Stability

21. Steflik D, Koth DL, Robinson F, McKinney R, Davis B, surface treatments in dog bone. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;
Morris C, et al. Prospective investigation of the single- 18: 415-20.
crystal sapphire endosteal dental implant in humans: 37. Farré-Pagés N, Augé-Castro ML, Alaejos-Algarra F,
Ten-year results. J Oral Implantol 1995; 21: 8-18. Mareque-Bueno J, Ferrés-Padró E, Hernández-Alfaro F.
22. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branmark PI. A 15– Relation between bone density and primary implant
year study of osseointegrated implant in treatment of the stability. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010; 16: e62-7.
edentulous jaw. Int J Oral surgery 1981; 10: 387- 416. 38. Turkyilmaz I, Tumer C, Ozbek EN, Tözüm TF.
23. Molly L. Bone density and primary stability in implant Relations between the bone density values from
therapy. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17: 124-35. computerized tomography, and implant stability
24. Bornstein MM, Cionca N, Mombelli A. Systemic parameters: a clinical study of 230 regular platform
conditions and treatments as risks for implant therapy. implants J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34: 716-22.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24: 12-27. 39. Sumera P, Danacib M, Telciogluc NT, Sandikcic EO,
25. Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Pacifici A, Pacifici L, Sumerd M, Gulere AU. Assessment of the correlation
Barbato E. How accurate is CBCT in measuring bone between bone density and implant stability. J Exp Clin
density? A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study. Clin Med 2013; 30: 237-40.
Implant Dent Relat Res 2014; 16: 471-8. 40. Salimov F, Tatli U, Kürkçü M, Akoğlan M, Oztunç H,
26. Al-Sudani RJ. Assessment of bone density after six Kurtoğlu C. Evaluation of relationship between
months from dental implants placement using Computed preoperative bone density values derived from cone
Tomography. J Bagh Coll Dentistry 2014; 26: 126-8. beam computed tomography and implant stability
27. Sim CP, Lang NP. Factors influencing resonance parameters: a clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res
frequency analysis assessed by Osstell mentor during 2014; 25: 1016-21.
implant tissue integration: I. Instrument positioning,
bone structure, implant length. Clin Oral Implants Res
2010; 21: 598-604.
28. Kessler-Liechti G, Zix J, Mericske-Stern R. Stability
measurements of 1-stage implants in the edentulous
mandible by means of resonance frequency analysis. Int
J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23: 353-8.
29. Cocharan DL, Schenk RK, Lussi A, Higginbottom FL,
Buser D. Bone response to unloaded and loaded titanium
implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: A
histometric study in the canine mandible. J Biomed
Mater Res 1998; 40: 1-11.
30. Brunski JB. Biomechanical factors affecting the bone-
dental implant interface. Clin Mater 1992; 10: 153-201.
31. Davies JE. Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J
Prosthodont 1998; 11: 391-401.
32. Meredith N, Alleyne D, Cawley P. Quantitative
determination of the stability of the implant-tissue
interface using resonance frequency analysis. Clin Oral
Implants Res 1996; 7: 261-7.
33. Jaramillo R, Santos R, Lázaro P, Romero M, Rios-
Santos JV, Bullón P, et al. Comparative analysis of 2
resonance frequency measurement devices: Osstell
Mentor and Osstell ISQ. J Implant Dent 2014; 23: 351-
6.
34. Huwiler MA, Pjetursson BE, Bosshardt DD, Salvi GE,
Lang NP. Resonance frequency analysis in relation to
jawbone characteristics and during early healing of
implant installation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18:
275-80.
35. Glauser R, Zembic A, Ruhstaller P, Windisch S. Five-
year results of implants with an oxidized surface placed
predominantly in soft quality bone and subjected to
immediate occlusal loading. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97: S59-
68.
36. Kim SJ, Kim MR, Rim JS, Chung SM, Shin SW.
Comparison of implant stability after different implant

21
Alexandria Dental Journal. (2015) Vol.40 Pages:15-21