Notes : 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
author: David E Simmons, Pooja Maney, Austin G Teitelbaum, Susan Billiot, Lomesh J Popat, A Archontia Palaiologou | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
DENTSPLY International, Susquehanna Commerce Center, 221 West Philadelphia Street, York, PA 17401
I-CAT 17 19; Imaging Services International LLC, 1910 North Penn Rd., Hatfield, PA 19440
Intra-Lock International, 6560 S. West Rogers Circle, Suite 24, Boca Raton, FL 33487
Osstell USA, 6700 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 200, Columbia, MD 21046
ImageJ 1.50i Wayne Rasband National Institutes of Health, USA; https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/; Java 1.8.0_77 (64bit)
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [1]
- 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