Analysis of results from Occluzer and BiteEye was performed by two-way ANOVA with occlusal loading and occlusal area as dependent variables, and clenching strength and presence or absence of implant as between-subject factors.
Methods : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (4)
author: Yukihiko Okada,Yuji Sato,Noboru Kitagawa,Keiichiro Uchida, Tokiko Osawa,Yoshiki ImamuraMayumi Terazawa | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
Analysis of the results from Occluzer and BiteEye
The following calculations were performed:
- Comparison of Occluzer and BiteEye in the occlusal contact area
- Comparison of the occlusal contact area and occlusal load between the implant and same number of natural teeth on the contralateral side
- Comparison of the occlusal contact area and occlusal load between molar areas of the implant side and contralateral side
- Comparison of the occlusal contact area and occlusal load between molar areas of the implant side and contralateral side excluding the first molar
- Comparison of the proportion of the occlusal contact area and occlusal load on the molar region accounted for by the prosthetic implant and contralateral tooth
Analysis of results from Occluzer and BiteEye was performed by two-way ANOVA with occlusal loading and occlusal area as dependent variables, and clenching strength and presence or absence of implant as between-subject factors. The level of significance for multiple comparison tests was set at 5 %.
In addition, multiple comparison test was performed using the Bonferroni method. PASW Statistics 18 was used for all statistical calculations (SPSS, Tokyo, Japan).
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