Methods : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (1)
Methods
Subjects and dentition
Subjects were nine outpatients (5 male, 4 female) attending Showa University Dental Hospital, aged 35–69 years (mean age, 49 ± 12 years) (Table 1). All subjects were cases of single implants placed at the mandibular first molar deficit, on the day of implant prosthesis setting and occlusal adjustment. The criteria for subject selection were no inflammatory symptoms (redness, swelling) in the implantation area, no implant mobility, no subjective symptoms, and no noticeable resorption on X-ray photographs.
The requirements for dentition were that other than the implant, which was the tooth to be studied, all teeth were natural; 28 teeth were present from the central incisors to the second molars, which includes the implant area; there were no mobile teeth; a basic periodontal test showed no pockets of 4 mm or more; there was no history of orthodontic therapy; and there was no oromandibular dysfunction such as temporomandibular disorder, masticatory muscle pain, or mandibular movement abnormality. In addition, occlusal adjustment was performed by a doctor in attendance. The implant prosthesis had one or more occlusal contact points at maximum clenching strength. Moreover, it has been adjusted as not to interfere with existing guide during lateral movement. Fourteen patients were selected based on these conditions, and consent was obtained from the doctor in charge of the 12 patients. Of these, nine patients consented to take part and acted as subjects.
The study was approved by Showa University Ethics Committee and was carried out after all subjects received a full explanation of the aims and methods of the study and gave their consent to participate (approval no. 2012-020).
Serial posts:
- Occlusal status of implant superstructures at mandibular first molar immediately after setting
- Background : Occlusal status of implant superstructures at mandibular first molar immediately after setting
- Methods : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (1)
- Methods : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (2)
- Methods : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (3)
- Methods : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (4)
- Results : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (1)
- Results : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (2)
- Results : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (3)
- Discussion : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (1)
- Discussion : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (2)
- Discussion : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (3)
- Discussion : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (3)
- Table 1 Site of implants
- Table 2 Two-way ANOVA of the occlusal contact area of the implant prosthesis
- Table 3 Two-way ANOVA of occlusal load of implant prosthesis
- Table 4 Two-way ANOVA of the occlusal contact area of the implant side molar region
- Table 5 Two-way ANOVA of occlusal load of the implant side molar region
- Table 6 Two-way ANOVA of the occlusal contact area of the implant side molar region
- Table 8 Two-way ANOVA of the proportion of occlusal load and contact area
- Figure 1. Comparison of the occlusal contact area between Occluzer and BiteEye
- Figure 2. Comparison of occlusal contact area and occlusal load between implant and contralateral tooth
- Figure 3. Comparison of the occlusal contact area and occlusal load between the implant side molar region and contralateral side molar region
- Figure 4. Comparison of the first molar-eliminated occlusal contact area
- Figure 5. Proportion of the occlusal contact area and occlusal load