Periotest method: implant-supported framework fit evaluation in vivo.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM In implant prosthodontics an accurate fit of the framework to the supporting implants is paramount. However, microgaps occur, unknown to the clinician until complications arise that implicate errors in fit. Therefore prosthodontics would welcome a tool or instrument that provides an objective evaluation of the fit at the implant prosthodontic interface. PURPOSE This clinical investigation determined whether a correlation existed between the laboratory laser measurement of the abutment analog-framework fit and the intraoral abutment-framework fit as measured by the Periotest method. MATERIAL AND METHODS Fifteen subjects received implant-supported remote fixed partial denture supported by five (11 subjects) or six (4 subjects) implants in the mandibular jaw opposed by a complete maxillary denture. Laser videography was used to quantify the fit of the framework to its respective master cast with six measurements, while the fit of the framework in the mouth was quantified with the Periotest method. Data were statistically analyzed with correlation analyses and multiple regression. RESULTS The overall correlation coefficient between the two methods was r = 0.51. Regression analysis of variance revealed that the intercept of the laser videography measurement was significant (p < or = 0.05). The mean Periotest values and standard deviation for the abutment-framework interface were negative (-7.3 +/- 1.2). The variance in part for the Periotest values was explained by the misfits in the vertical axis (delta Z, +0.471) and in the misfit direction of the centroids in the x-y plane (X-YVD, -0.244). CONCLUSION There was no single variable among the six measurement variables that strongly correlated with the periotest method in the identification of mistfit at the bearing surface as indicated by the Periotest value measurements. The misfit laser variables that were weakly correlated to the Periotest values should be observable clinically with greater scrutiny.

[1]  D van Steenberghe,et al.  Periotest: an objective clinical diagnosis of bone apposition toward implants. , 1991, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[2]  B R Lang,et al.  Fit of implant frameworks fabricated by different techniques. , 1997, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  B R Lang,et al.  The precision of fit at the implant prosthodontic interface. , 1997, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  G E Carlsson,et al.  Prosthodontic complications in osseointegrated dental implant treatment. , 1994, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[5]  J. Mclean,et al.  The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique , 1971, British Dental Journal.

[6]  B R Lang,et al.  The Periotest method: implant-supported framework precision of fit evaluation. , 1996, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[7]  Graham E. White,et al.  Osseointegrated dental technology , 1994 .

[8]  W Schulte,et al.  The Periotest method. , 1992, International dental journal.

[9]  B R Lang,et al.  Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontic interface. , 1996, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  D van Steenberghe,et al.  Mechanical state assessment of the implant-bone continuum: a better understanding of the Periotest method. , 1995, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[11]  T Albrektsson,et al.  Osseointegration of bone implants. A review of an alternative mode of fixation. , 1987, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[12]  R. D. Overheim,et al.  Light and Color , 1982 .

[13]  D Buser,et al.  Tissue integration of non-submerged implants. 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. , 1990, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  K D Rudd,et al.  Accurate alginate impressions. , 1969, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  D van Steenberghe,et al.  Damping characteristics of bone-to-implant interfaces. A clinical study with the Periotest device. , 1995, Clinical oral implants research.

[16]  L. Laster,et al.  An evaluation of clinical tooth mobility measurements. , 1975, Journal of periodontology.

[17]  C Aparicio,et al.  Periotest method as a measure of osseointegrated oral implant stability. , 1990, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[18]  E. W. Skinner,et al.  A study of the accuracy of hydrocolloid impressions , 1956 .