Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2015
Application and Interpretation of Resonance Frequency Analysis in Auditory Osseointegrated Implants: A Review of Literature and Establishment of Practical Recommendations.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nelissen Rik C, Wigren Stina, Flynn Mark C, Meijer Gert J, Mylanus Emmanuel A M, Hol Myrthe K S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To establish standardization of implant stability measurements in auditory osseointegrated implants by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) through reviewing the currently published literature.
METHODS: Studies reporting on RFA in auditory osseointegrated implants were identified, and the outcomes and the way these were reported were evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirteen clinical studies reporting RFA outcomes of auditory osseointegrated implants were identified and analyzed, which demonstrated variations in methodology and reporting of data. The different reporting standards made a meta-analysis impossible. Heterogeneity and limitations were found in reporting of the types of implants, abutments, and SmartPegs used; study population sizes; follow-up duration; and, reporting of the implant stability quotient (ISQ).
CONCLUSION: RFA is an interesting outcome of clinical studies on auditory osseointegrated implant research and might have potential as a clinically relevant tool for assessing implant stability. Because of the heterogeneous data that have been reported to date, the following guidelines for standardization of application and reporting were established. The implant and abutment type and length, and the type of SmartPeg should always be stated. Absolute stand-alone ISQ values should not be interpreted individually. ISQ values are at this moment most meaningful as a trend in the individual patient or in a population over time. No conclusions should be based on individual ISQ values. Standardized time points for RFA in research should be determined prospectively, with surgery as a baseline. After abutment replacement, individual ISQ trends from baseline cannot be interpreted anymore if the abutments differ in length.
METHODS: Studies reporting on RFA in auditory osseointegrated implants were identified, and the outcomes and the way these were reported were evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirteen clinical studies reporting RFA outcomes of auditory osseointegrated implants were identified and analyzed, which demonstrated variations in methodology and reporting of data. The different reporting standards made a meta-analysis impossible. Heterogeneity and limitations were found in reporting of the types of implants, abutments, and SmartPegs used; study population sizes; follow-up duration; and, reporting of the implant stability quotient (ISQ).
CONCLUSION: RFA is an interesting outcome of clinical studies on auditory osseointegrated implant research and might have potential as a clinically relevant tool for assessing implant stability. Because of the heterogeneous data that have been reported to date, the following guidelines for standardization of application and reporting were established. The implant and abutment type and length, and the type of SmartPeg should always be stated. Absolute stand-alone ISQ values should not be interpreted individually. ISQ values are at this moment most meaningful as a trend in the individual patient or in a population over time. No conclusions should be based on individual ISQ values. Standardized time points for RFA in research should be determined prospectively, with surgery as a baseline. After abutment replacement, individual ISQ trends from baseline cannot be interpreted anymore if the abutments differ in length.