## 3 Results  
Table 1 shows the implant stability measurements obtained by each device. As shown, using Penguin in parallel measurement yields the highest ISQ values; in contrast, using the MegaISQ\({}^{\text{\textregistered}}\) in a perpendicular measurement results in the lowest values. Figure 1: Implant locations in a representative mandible with a Penguin® multipeg inserted in one of the implants. The difference between the values obtained with each device and technique and the mean ISQ values is shown in Figure 2. The mean of these differences was 0.13 (95% CI: \(-\)5.79 to 6.05) for the Oostell(r) Beacon in a parallel measurement; \(-\)1.45 (95% CI: \(-\)7.78 to 4.88) for the Oostell(r) Beacon in a perpendicular measurement; 4.2 (95% CI: \(-\)6.20 to 14.60) for the Penguin(r) in a parallel measurement; 1.03 (95% CI: \(-\)7.40 to 9.47) for the Penguin(r) in a perpendicular measurement; \(-\)2.02 (95% CI: \(-\)7.30 to 3.27) for the MegaISQ(r) in a parallel measurement and \(-\)1.09 (95% CI: \(-\)13.03 to 9.23) for MegaISQ(r) in a perpendicular measurement. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Device** & **Technique** & **ISQ** & **Difference with Mean ISQ Values** \\ \hline OSSTELL® & parallel & 62.2 (59.5 to 64.9) & 0.1 (\(-\)0.1 to 0.1) \\ \cline{2-4} Beacon & perpendicular & 60.6 (58.0 to 63.3) & \(-\)1.5 (\(-\)1.7 to \(-\)1.15) \\ \hline PENGUIN® & parallel & 66.3 (62.4 to 70.1) & 4.2 (3.25 to 5.1) \\ \cline{2-4}  & perpendicular & 63.1 (60.0 to 66.3) & 1 (0.85 to 1.3) \\ \hline MEGAISQ® & parallel & 60.1 (57.5 to 62.6) & \(-\)2 (\(-\)2.4 to \(-\)1.65) \\ \cline{2-4}  & perpendicular & 60.2 (57.5 to 62.8) & \(-\)1.9 (\(-\)2.2 to \(-\)1.65) \\ \hline ISQ—implant stability quotient. 95\% CI—95\% confidence interval. & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Mean values (95% CI) of implant stability quotient (ISQ) according to the device and the orientation. Figure 2: _Cont._  
Table 2 shows the reliability scores for the three devices. The highest inter- and intra-rater reliability was obtained by Penguin(r) when measuring in parallel. The lowest inter-rater reliability was obtained by MegaISQ(r) measuring perpendicularly, Osstell(r) Beacon measuring perpendicularly, and MegaISQ(r) measuring in parallel. The lowest intra-rater reliability was obtained by Osstell(r) Beacon. A matrix with the Pearson correlation coefficients is shown in Table 3. The highest correlation value with the other devices was obtained by MegaISQ(r) measuring parallel; however, this device obtained the lowest correlation value when measuring perpendicular. Osstell(r) Beacon obtained high correlation values with the other devices measuring either in parallel or perpendicular. Penguin(r) obtained correlation values lower than Osstell(r) Beacon, both measuring parallel and perpendicular, but higher than MegaISQ(r) when measuring perpendicular. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Reliability**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ICC Classification**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{INTER-RATER} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{INTRA-RATER} \\ \hline METHOD & ICC (95\% CI) & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ICC (95\% CI)} \\ \hline OSSTELL®B parallel & 0.37 (0.40 to 0.64) & poor & 0.65 (0.38 to 0.81) & moderate \\ \hline OSSTELL®B perpendicular & 0.20 (\(-\)0.17 to 0.52) & poor & 0.47 (0.13 to 0.71) & poor \\ \hline PENGUIN® parallel & 0.86 (0.72 to 0.93) & good & 0.85 (0.70 to 0.92) & good \\ \hline PENGUIN® perpendicular & 0.57 (0.26 to 0.77) & moderate & 0.78 (0.56 to 0.89) & good \\ \hline MEGAISQ® parallel & 0.26 (\(-\)0.11 to 0.57) & poor & 0.60 (0.26 to 0.79) & moderate \\ \hline MEGAISQ® perpendicular & \(-\)0.01 (\(-\)0.38 to 0.36) & poor & 0.57 (0.27 to 0.77) & moderate \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{ICC—intraclass correlation coefficient, two-way random, absolute agreement for single measurement; OSSTELL®B–Ostell® Beacon.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Reliability (ICC; 95% CI) of the three devices used to measure ISQ.