Insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis (ISQ) as predictor methods of implant osseointegration

  • Osvaldo Gahona Gutiérrez Faculty of Dentistry. Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Universidad Finis Terrae, Santiago, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
  • Xenia Granic Marinov Faculty of Dentistry. Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Universidad Finis Terrae, Santiago, Chile.
  • Cristina Antunez Chelmes Faculty of Dentistry, Graduate School. Universidad San Sebastian, Santiago, Chile.
  • Stefan Domancic Alucema Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
  • Víctor Patricio Díaz Narváez | Faculty of Health, Universidad Autónoma de Chile. Santiago, Faculty of Health, Research Department. Universidad Bernardo OHiggins, Santiago, Chile.
  • Robert Utsman Abarca Latin American University of Science and Technology, San José, Costa Rica.


Aim Determining appropriate primary stability at time of implant placement is a key therapeutic decision. The aim of the study was to compare insertion torque and implant stability quotient (ISQ) obtained at the time of implant placement, as predictors of osseointegration.
Methods There were 31 implants evaluated in the maxilla and 29 in the mandible. A “High Torque Indicating Ratchet Wrench” was used for the measurement of insertion torque and a “Osstell Mentor®” to register the ISQ value at the end of each surgery. At 6 weeks counter-torque was performed on each implant using a “Low Torque Indicating Ratchet Wrench” applying 20 to 32 Ncm. Successful osseointegration was appropriately obtained with torque insertion of 35 or more and an ISQ of 60 or more without mobility, as well as torque insertion less than 35 and an ISQ less than 60 with mobility. The results, contrary to those described above, were considered to be failure.  The use of ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curves establishes differences between the two methods. Contingency tables and Kappa statistics were used to analyze the coincidence results between methods. Insertion torque was used as the Gold Standard. The significance level used is α≤0.05.
Results In the ROC curve analysis, the area of value was 0.611 (p> 0.05). The Kappa statistic value was 0.208 (p> 0.05) and there are no discrepancies between success and failure between the two methods compared.
Conclusion Both methods tend to have the same results in relation to the studied variables.


Download data is not yet available.


1) Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindstrom J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981; 52:155–170.
2) Mihoko A, Sang-hoon P, Hom-lay W. Methods used to assess Implant stability: Current Status. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007; 22:743-754,.
3) Cehreli M, Karasoy D, Akca K, Eckert S. Meta-analysis of methods used to assess implant stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:1015–1032.
4) Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lang NP. De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous im- plants. A model study in the dog. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2003; 14:251–262.
5) 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,
6) Meredith N, Book K, Friberg B, Jemt T, Sennerby L. Resonance frequency measurements of implant stability in vivo. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of resonance frequency measurements on implants in the edentulous and partially dentate maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8:226-33,
7) Degidi M, Daprile G, Piattelli, A. Determination of primary stabilty: a comparison of the surgeon’s perception and objective measurements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25:558-61,
8) Herrero M, Albertini M, Ríos J, Lázaro P, Fernández A, Bullon P. Resonance frequency analysis reliability in third generation instruments: Osstell mentor®. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17 (5):801-6,
9) Balleri P, Cozzolino A, Ghelli L, Momicchioli G, Varriale A. Stability measurements of osseointegrated implants using Osstell in partially edentulous jaws after 1 year of loading: a pilot study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002; 4:128–132.
10) Benic G, Mir-Mari J, Hämmerle C. Loading Protocols for Single-Implant Crowns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29(suppl):222–238.
11) Gallucci G, Benic G, Eckert S, Papaspyridakos P, Schimmel M, Schrott A, et al. Consensus Statements and Clinical Recommendations for Implant Loading Protocols. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013. Aug 15.
12) Uribe R, Peñarrocha M, Balaguer J, Fulgueiras N. Immediate loading in oral implants: Present situation. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 2005; 10(Suppl. 2):E143-53,
13) Sullivan D, Sherwood R, Collins T. The reverse-torque test: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11:179–185.
14) Gaspar MJ, Arribas I, Hontoria JM, Bokobo P, Coca C, Angulo JC. Utilidad de la fracción libre de antígeno prostático específico en el diagnóstico diferencial entre hiperplasia prostática y cáncer de próstata. Med Clin (Barc) 2000; 115:332-336.
15) Armesto D. Pruebas Diagnósticas: Curvas ROC. Electron J Biomed. 2011; 1:77-82
16) Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33:159-174.
17) Trisi P, Carlesi T, Colagiovanni M. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) vs direct in vitro measurement of primary sta- bility (micromotion): Effect of bone density and insertion torque. J Osteol Biomat. 2010;3:141–151.
18) Turkyilmaz I, Sennerby L, McGlumphy E. Biomechanical aspects of primary implant stability: A human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009;11:113–119.
19) Filho LC, Cirano FR, Hayashi F, Feng HS, Conte A, Dib LL, et al. Assessment of the correlation between insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis of implants placed in bone tissue of different densities. J Oral Implantol. 2014; 40(3):259-62.
20) Kahraman S, Bal BT, Asar NV, Turkyilmaz I, Tözüm TF. Clinical study on the insertion torque and wireless resonance frequency analysis in the assessment of torque capacity and stability of self-tapping dental implants. J Oral Rehabil. 2009;36(10):755-761.
21) Ohta K, Takechi M, Minami M, Shigeishi H, Hiraoka M, Nishimura M, et al. Influence of factors related to implant stability detected by wireless resonance frequency analysis device. J Oral Rehabil. 2010; 37(2):131-137.
22) Makary C, Rebaudi A, Sammartino G, Naaman N. Implant primary stability determined by resonance frequency analysis: correlation with insertion torque, histologic bone volume, and torsional stability at 6 weeks. Implant Dentistry. 2012; 21(6): 474-480.
23) Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG. Can resonance frequency analysis predict failure risk of immediately loaded implants? Int J Prosthodont. 2012; 25(4):326-39.
Dental Implants, Primary Stability, Resonance Frequency Analysis, Insertion Torque
Abstract views: 330

pdf: 126
Share it

PlumX Metrics

PlumX Metrics provide insights into the ways people interact with individual pieces of research output (articles, conference proceedings, book chapters, and many more) in the online environment. Collectively known as PlumX Metrics, these metrics are divided into five categories to help make sense of the huge amounts of data involved and to enable analysis by comparing like with like.