Submerged two-stage, Nonsubmerged one-stage, Dental implants, Marginal bone loss
Fig. 6. Mean values of gingival recession (REC) between the two groups at the end of follow-up period (3-year). ANOVA test : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
author: Renzo Guarnieri, Dario Di Nardo, Gianni Di Giorgio, Gabriele Miccoli, Luca Testarelli | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
Fig. 6. Mean values of gingival recession (REC) between the two groups at the end of follow-up period (3-year). ANOVA test
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Introduction : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Materials and methods : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [1]
- Materials and methods : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [2]
- Materials and methods : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [3]
- Materials and methods : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [4]
- Materials and methods : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [5]
- Results : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Discussion : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [1]
- Discussion : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [2]
- Discussion : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [3]
- Conclusions : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Availability of data and materials : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- References : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [1]
- References : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [2]
- References : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [3]
- References : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [4]
- Acknowledgments : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Funding : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Author information : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Ethics declarations : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Additional information : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Rights and permissions : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- About this article : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Table 1 Demographic data of patients, implants position, and type of implant : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single
- Table 2 Distribution of each implant in each group : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in
- Table 3 Differences in number of sites with plaque and bleeding on probing (BOP) between the two groups during the follow-up period (Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, P > 0.05) : Clinical and radiographics
- Table 4 Patients’ full-mouth periodontal probing depth (FMPPD), full-mouth plaque score (FMPS), and full-mouth bleeding score (FMBS) recorded during the follow-up period : Clinical and radiographics
- Fig. 1. Example of the location of a non-submerged implant, bone, and adjacent tooth : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 2. Example of the location of a submerged implant, bone, and adjacent tooth : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 3. Implants used in the present study and laser-microtextured intramucosal surface (original magnification × 800) : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 4. Schematic view of radiographic measurement references : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 5. Mean values of probing depth (PD) between the two groups during the follow-up period. ANOVA test P > 0.05 : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 6. Mean values of gingival recession (REC) between the two groups at the end of follow-up period (3-year). ANOVA test : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 7. Changes of CBL (mm) between the two groups in sites with KKT > 2 and ≤ 2 mm. ANOVA test : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 8. Mean values of crestal bone loss (CBL) between the two groups during the follow-up period. ANOVA test : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant