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]
The following radiographic measurements were performed:
radiographic implant length (IL): distance (in mm) between the implant coronal margin and the implant apex as assessed at the mid portion of the implant
residual bone height at the mesial (MI) and distal (DI) aspects of the implant: distance (in mm) between the line linking the coronal implant margin and the first contact of the crestal bone on both mesial and distal side of the implant
The radiographic CBL was measured as the difference between MI/DI values at baseline (T0) and at each follow-up examination (T1, T2, T3). For each implant, CBL was calculated as the mean value of MI and DI.
To account for radiographic distortion, radiographic measurements on each radiograph were adjusted for a coefficient derived from the ratio: true length of the implant/IL. All measurements were carried out by a single trained examiner who had previously undergone a calibration session for radiographic assessment on a sample of 5 patients treated with the same implant system and not included in the study (kappa test = 0.9640, SE of kappa = 0.06, 95% confidence interval: from 0.8792 to 1.000). Figures 1 and 2 show an example of radiographic measurements used for evaluation. Figure 4 shows a schematic view of radiographic measurement references.
Modified plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded at the delivery of definitive restorations (T0) and at each yearly recall visit (T1, T2, T3) on six sites per implant, by means of a manual periodontal probe (PCP UNC-15, Hu Friedy, Chicago, IL, USA). For each implant, the mean of the six measurements was calculated and used for comparison purposes and statistical analysis. Mucosal recession (REC) was recorded at the end of the 3-year follow-up period.
All the clinical outcome variables were carried out by a single trained examiner who had previously undergone a calibration session on a sample of 5 patients treated with the same implant system and not included in the study (kappa test = 0.9418, SE of kappa = 0.09, 95% confidence interval: from 0.8417 to 1.000).
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