Methods : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [2]
Methods : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [2]
author: David E Simmons, Pooja Maney, Austin G Teitelbaum, Susan Billiot, Lomesh J Popat, A Archontia Palaiologou | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
ANOVA was used to compare the mean implant stabilities between the three groups. Post hoc testing was done via Tukey’s honestly significant differences test to calculate the differences between ISQ measurements at the time of implant placement, 6 weeks and 6 and 12 months (Fig. 2) as well as bone levels at 6 and 12 months (Fig. 3). The correlations of multiple parameters such as insertion torque, ISQ, and crestal bone level were calculated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [2]
- Background : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [1]
- Background : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [2]
- Methods : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [1]
- Methods : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [2]
- Results : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- Discussion : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [1]
- Discussion : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [2]
- Conclusions : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- Notes : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- References : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [1]
- References : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [2]
- References : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [3]
- Author information : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- Rights and permissions : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- About this article : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- Table 1 Patient selection criteria : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- Table 2 Outcome success criteria : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- Fig. 1. Implant design. The OSPTX and OSP implants are manufactured from high-grade commercially pure titanium with surface roughness produced via a fluoride treatment process. The OSP implant is a screw-shaped self-tapping implant. The diameter used in this study was 4.0 mm. The implant length used in this study was 8 mm. The OSPTX implant has the same features as the OSP except the apex of the implant is tapered : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant
- Fig. 2. ISQ values at placement, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. Mean and standard deviation of ISQ values taken at placement, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year is presented. No statistical significant difference was determined between ISQ values at all time points. (p < 0.05) : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant
- Fig. 3. Mean bone loss at 6 months and 1 year. Mean bone loss distribution charts at 6 months and 1 year present no statistically significant difference. p value at 6 months was 0.2981 and at 1 year 0.6613 : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant