Key result
Wireless/Periotest 'M' and Wired/Classic instruments showed no significant differences in implant stability measurements among 10 trained evaluators (P < .05).
Why the study?
Does the Wireless/Periotest "M" instrument provide reproducible stability measurements compared to the Wired/Classic instrument in an in vitro setting?
Does the Wireless/Periotest "M" instrument provide reproducible stability measurements compared to the Wired/Classic instrument in an in vitro setting?
Both wired and wireless Periotest instruments provide meaningful and reproducible recordings of implant stability measurements in vitro.
Supports wireless device utility for assessing implant stability; leaves open whether these in vitro reproducibility.
This in vitro study evaluated agreement among 10 trained evaluators when assessing implant stability with the Wired/Classic and Wireless/Periotest "M." A difference of 1 Periotest value (PTV) between the wired (-7) and wireless (-8) instruments was observed for the pretest calibration ring. No significant differences were found between the instruments and for all evaluators for all tests (analysis of variance, P < .05). Each instrument can provide meaningful and reproducible recordings of stability measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Crum et al. (2011) studied Implant stability assessment (n=10). Wireless/Periotest "M" vs. Wired/Classic Periotest was evaluated on Agreement among evaluators assessing implant stability (p=< .05). Wireless/Periotest 'M' and Wired/Classic instruments showed no significant differences in implant stability measurements among 10 trained evaluators (P < .05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: