Conclusions : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
Conclusions : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
author: Rmy Tanimura, Shiro Suzuki | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
Within the limitation of the study, it was concluded that:
The null-hypothesis “superficial and marginal deterioration of M4M and CR would not be significantly different” was accepted.
The M4M (modified 4-META/MMA-TBB resin) and CR (composite resin) combined with a ceramic primer showed comparable characteristics (marginal integrity and wear behavior) in an access hole filling.
The esthetical evaluation (VAS scale) showed that there were no significant differences between group M4M and CR.
After 12 months, the pattern of marginal wear showed a difference, but both materials clinically worked out successfully.
Further long-term investigation is necessary to confirm these findings.
Serial posts:
- Background : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Methods : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [1]
- Methods : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [2]
- Methods : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [3]
- Results : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Discussion : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [1]
- Discussion : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [2]
- Discussion : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [3]
- Discussion : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [4]
- Conclusions : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- References : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [1]
- References : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [2]
- References : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [3]
- References : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [4]
- Acknowledgements : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Author information : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Rights and permissions : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- About this article : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Table 1 ᅟ : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Table 2 Aesthetical Outcomes at T = 12 M (VAS Score) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Table 3 Surface areas changes of access-hole filling. Unit: % : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Table 4 Disappearance of the overfilling. Unit: % : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Fig. 1. Brush-dip technique : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 2. Occlusal contact point : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 3. a–e (Filling surface changes): a (ROG, T = 0). b (ROG, T = 1 M). c (ROG, T = 3 M). d (ROG, T = 6 M). e (ROG, T = 12 M) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 4. Margin depth measurement localization (example: TRA, T = 12 M) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 5. Depth and angle at the margin : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 6. Access-hole filling surface areas measurement, average : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 7. a, b (The marginal discrepancy pattern for group CR and M4M). a Group CR (1: Ceramic surface, 2: CR surface) Units of the axis are in μm. b Group M4M (1: Ceramic surface, 2: M4M surface) Units of the axis are in μm : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant