{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015764222069910898, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.186440677966102, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Validity and clinical significance of biomechanical testing of implant/bone interface.

PURPOSE
The aim of this paper was to review the clinical literature on the Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and Periotest techniques in order to assess the validity and prognostic value of each technique to detect implants at risk for failure.


MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search was made using the PubMed database to find clinical studies using the RFA and/or Periotest techniques.


RESULTS
A limited number of clinical reports were found. No randomized-controlled clinical trials or prospective cohort studies could be found for validity testing of the techniques. Consequently, only a narrative review was prepared to cover general aspects of the techniques, factors influencing measurements and the clinical relevance of the techniques.


CONCLUSIONS
Factors such as bone density, upper or lower jaw, abutment length and supracrestal implant length seem to influence both RFA and Periotest measurements. Data suggest that high RFA and low Periotest values indicate successfully integrated implants and that low/decreasing RFA and high/increasing Periotest values may be signs of ongoing disintegration and/or marginal bone loss. However, single readings using any of the techniques are of limited clinical value. The prognostic value of the RFA and Periotest techniques in predicting loss of implant stability has yet to be established in prospective clinical studies.