# Validation of the Implant Stability Test for Implant Provisional Crowns: An In Vitro Study
## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Provisional Crown** & **D1** & **D2** & **D3** & **D4** & **Healing Abument** & **D1** & **D2** & **D3** & **D4** \\ \hline Mean & 71.9 & 68.7 & 65.1 & 56.6 & Mean & 78.9 & 74.3 & 71.6 & 60.6 \\ SD & 1.62 & 1.58 & 0.93 & 1.24 & SD & 1.54 & 2.96 & 0.89 & 1.33 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* IST: implant stability test; SD: standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mean and standard deviation of IST by bone quality. number of implants placed and the surgical technique used. Quantifying the implant stability using AnyCheck(r) may help shorten the treatment time and prevent treatment failure. To date, only a few reports on AnyCheck(r) have been published because it has been recently introduced in the market. In a clinical study, [PERSON] et al. [30] measured the correlation between preoperative bone density and initial fixation using AnyCheck(r) for 40 implants. They reported significant correlations among bone density values, IST values, and insertion torque. We measured the correlation between AnyCheck(r) and Osetstl(r) findings for 15 implants in 10 patients. The measurement period for each device was set immediately and 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks after implant placement. The IST values immediately and 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 after implant placement were 81.0 \(\pm\) 2.82, 79.1 \(\pm\) 2.87, 79.7 \(\pm\) 2.83, 80.5 \(\pm\) 2.71, 80.9 \(\pm\) 4.0, and 82.4 \(\pm\) 2.65, respectively, with [PERSON]'s rank correlation coefficients of 0.64, 0.29, 0.68, 0.53, 0.68, and 0.56, respectively. The IST and ISQ values were positively correlated at all time points except week 1, when the correlation was weak [9]. [PERSON] et al. [31] measured the correlation between AnyCheck(r) and Periotest findings for 50 implants. Measurements were taken on the day of surgery; 2 weeks after surgery; and 1, 2, and 3 months after surgery, and the IST values were 76.1, 75.82, 76.4, 76.5, and 77.48, respectively, with no significant difference at any time point. Collectively, these findings suggest the usefulness of AnyCheck(r). No previous study has compared healing abutment and provisional crown groups using AnyCheck(r). The significant difference between the two groups in the present study may be because the percussion response was directly transmitted to the implant body in the healing abutment group, but the presence of the titanium base in the provisional crown group may have interfered with the response, resulting in a lower IST value. The correlation between the groups varied with bone quality. One reason may be the small denominator. In addition, there are no reports on implant stability using training cubes; therefore, further validation is needed to increase the denominator. However, because the difference between the two groups was a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7, we believe that the measurement of implant stability is possible by establishing a reference value for immediate loading. Clinical application will become possible in the future when additional clinical data on immediate loading are collected. Conceptualization, H.K. and K.N. ; methodology, Y.O., K.W. and T.N. ; formal analysis, M.O. and H.T. ; writing--original draft preparation, Y.O. and K.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research received no external funding. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The authors declare no conflict of interest.