Results : Occlusal status of implant superstructures (1)
Comparison of occlusal contact areas evaluated using Occluzer and BiteEye
Occlusal contact area values obtained with BiteEye and Occluzer at clenching intensities from 20 to 100 % MVC were compared (Fig. 1). At different clenching intensities, the contact area values of BiteEye with silicone thickness of 10 μm (BE 10 μm) were the most similar to the contact area values of Occluzer. Thus, comparisons of occlusal contact area values between Occluzer and BiteEye were carried out with a silicone thickness of 10 μm.
Comparison of implant region and contralateral tooth
Comparison of occlusal contact area
The occlusal contact area of implant prostheses increased with clenching strength and was always less than that of the contralateral tooth (Fig. 2). ANOVA results (Table 2) show a significant difference between implants and natural teeth with BiteEye (P < 0.05). Multiple comparison test showed that the occlusal contact area of implants was significantly smaller than the occlusal contact area of contralateral teeth with BiteEye at clenching intensities of 40 and 60 % MVC and Occluzer at clenching intensities of 80 and 100 % MVC (P < 0.05).
Comparison of occlusal load
Occlusal load on implant prostheses increased with clenching strength and was always less than that on the contralateral teeth (Fig. 2). At 100 % MVC, the occlusal load on the implant prosthesis was 47.7 ± 39.0 N and that on the contralateral tooth was 81.4 ± 41.1 N. ANOVA results (Table 3) showed a significant interaction in the difference in occlusal load between implants and natural teeth, and clenching strength (P < 0.05). Multiple comparison test showed that the occlusal load was significantly smaller on the implant prostheses than on the contralateral teeth at clenching intensities of 80 and 100 % MVC (P < 0.05).
The rate of increase in occlusal load from 40 to 100 % MVC was 106.1 % for the implant prosthesis and 127.4 % for the contralateral tooth.
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