講演情報
[IO-7]Multi-method Assessment of Inter-rater Reliability in Dental Implant Stability Measurements
*So Young Cho1, Jungbo Huh1, Changmo Jeong1, Mijung Yun1, Sohyoun Lee1, Daesung Kim1 (1. Pusan National University Dental Hospital Prosthodontics)
[Objective]
Implant stability is considered closely related to the successful osseointegration of implants. Previous studies have extensively analyzed the reliability of individual measurement methods, but there is a lack of research assessing the concordance of these methods when used by different examiners. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of currently accepted implant stability measurement methods by comparing the stability measurements of implants placed in beagles by researchers who received identical training.
[Method]
A study was conducted with five junior researchers from school of dentistry. The five examiners participated in multiple rounds of education, including video tutorials and training sessions with the research planner, to standardize the measurement method. The methods used to measure implant stability include ISQ (Osstell Mentor), ISV (Easy Check), X-ray analysis, and histologic analysis (BIT, ITBD). It was ensured that measurement values were not shared until all measurements were completed. The difference within the measurements of each observer was evaluated by using Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for post hoc comparisons.
[Results and Discussion]
There were no significant differences in the ISV and BIC measurement results. Significant differences were observed in the ISQ, X-ray, and ITBD measurement results, but post-hoc analysis revealed that most correlations did not show significant differences. Based on the above, it is believed that the ISV and BIC assessment methods are useful among trained assessors. However, this study has limitations as it does not reflect clinical situations, and the number of implants used and the number of repeated measurements are insufficient.
[References]
1) H. Bilhan, A. Cilingir, C. Bural, et al. The evaluation of the reliability of periotest for implant stability measurements: An in vitro study, J Oral Implantol 2015; 41(4): e90-e95.
2) Geckili O, Bilhan H, Cilingir A, et al. A comparative in vitro evaluation of two different magnetic devices detecting the stability of osseo-integrated implants. J Periodontal Res 2012;47:508–513.
3) Swami, V, Vijayaraghavan, V, Swami, V. Current trends to measure implant stability. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016; 16: 124-130.
Implant stability is considered closely related to the successful osseointegration of implants. Previous studies have extensively analyzed the reliability of individual measurement methods, but there is a lack of research assessing the concordance of these methods when used by different examiners. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of currently accepted implant stability measurement methods by comparing the stability measurements of implants placed in beagles by researchers who received identical training.
[Method]
A study was conducted with five junior researchers from school of dentistry. The five examiners participated in multiple rounds of education, including video tutorials and training sessions with the research planner, to standardize the measurement method. The methods used to measure implant stability include ISQ (Osstell Mentor), ISV (Easy Check), X-ray analysis, and histologic analysis (BIT, ITBD). It was ensured that measurement values were not shared until all measurements were completed. The difference within the measurements of each observer was evaluated by using Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for post hoc comparisons.
[Results and Discussion]
There were no significant differences in the ISV and BIC measurement results. Significant differences were observed in the ISQ, X-ray, and ITBD measurement results, but post-hoc analysis revealed that most correlations did not show significant differences. Based on the above, it is believed that the ISV and BIC assessment methods are useful among trained assessors. However, this study has limitations as it does not reflect clinical situations, and the number of implants used and the number of repeated measurements are insufficient.
[References]
1) H. Bilhan, A. Cilingir, C. Bural, et al. The evaluation of the reliability of periotest for implant stability measurements: An in vitro study, J Oral Implantol 2015; 41(4): e90-e95.
2) Geckili O, Bilhan H, Cilingir A, et al. A comparative in vitro evaluation of two different magnetic devices detecting the stability of osseo-integrated implants. J Periodontal Res 2012;47:508–513.
3) Swami, V, Vijayaraghavan, V, Swami, V. Current trends to measure implant stability. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016; 16: 124-130.