Adequate implant stability is an essential requirement. The introduction of the Penguin resonance frequency analysis raises some questions regarding its reliability, reproducibility, and repeatability as well as how it compares to the older Osstell device.
Purpose: To assess the newer Penguin implant stability coefficient (ISQ) device (vs the Osstell device).
Materials and methods: A total of 120 implants were used, divided into four groups (A, B, C, and D) (according to design) and placed in fresh bovine bone. Consecutive measurements were made with both devices (Penguin/Osstell) with their respective transducers. Then, the ISQ values were measured with the Penguin device using the Osstell transducer, and vice-versa.
Results: The mean insertion torque (N/cm) values for the implants were as follows: Group A = 24.7 ± 9.4; Group B = 25.6 ± 9.7; Group C = 28.7 ± 7.9; Group D = 19.1 ± 5.5. The mean ISQ values for the entire sample were as follows: Penguin 67.7 ± 6.1 and Osstell 68.5 ± 9.6. The ISQ value measured with the Penguin device using a SmartPeg transducer was 67.0 ± 8.0, and that for the Osstell device using a MultiPeg transducer was 68.3 ± 7.5. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for the ISQ values obtained from both devices and was >0.90 for all transducers. When the ICC transducers were interchanged, the values were <0.77.
Conclusions: Both ISQ devices allow for reliable and repeatable measurement of implant stability; however, the use of each device-specific transducer is recommended.
Keywords: Osstell; Penguin; RFA; implant stability; resonance frequency analysis.
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.