Comparison of proportion of occlusal contact area and occlusal load on the molar region accounted for by prosthetic implant and contralateral tooth

With both BiteEye and Occluzer, the proportion of the occlusal contact area on the molar region overall accounted for by the prosthetic implant was less than the proportion accounted for by the contralateral natural tooth, and ANOVA showed this difference to be significant (P < 0.05) (Fig. 5, Table 8). Multiple comparison test also showed that the prosthetic implant accounted for a significantly smaller proportion of occlusal contact area at all clenching intensities other than 40 and 60 % MVC with Occluzer (P < 0.05). With occlusal load as well, the prosthetic implant accounted for a significantly smaller proportion than the contralateral tooth, and at 100 % MVC, the occlusal load on the prosthetic implant was 9.1 % of the load on the molar region while the occlusal load on the contralateral tooth was 16.3 %. Multiple comparison test showed that the proportion of occlusal load on the molar region accounted for by the prosthetic implant was significantly smaller than that accounted for by the contralateral tooth at clenching intensities other than 40 and 60 % (P < 0.05).

No significant differences in the proportion of occlusal area or occlusal load on the molar region attributable to clenching strength were found with the prosthetic implant or the contralateral tooth with either BiteEye or Occluzer (P > 0.05) (Table 8).