Table 1 Comparison of % BIC in both groups
Table 1 Comparison of % BIC in both groups
author: Jagjit S Dhaliwal,Rubens F Albuquerque Jr,Monzur MurshedJocelyne S Feine | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
Sample
3M™ESPE™ MDIs
Ankylos®
1.
67
54
2.
59
67
3.
54
45
4.
51
58
5.
47
57
6.
64
49
7.
50
54
8.
60
56
9.
56
60
10.
61
53
11.
62
59
12.
61
55
13.
59
59
14.
45
51
15.
58
59
16.
54
62
17.
66
62
18.
56
57
Serial posts:
-
Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison
-
Background : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (1)
-
Background : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (2)
-
Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (1)
-
Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (2)
-
Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (3)
-
Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (4)
-
Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (5)
-
Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (6)
-
Results : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants
-
Discussion : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (1)
-
Discussion : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (2)
-
Figure 1. Radiograph showing implants in the rabbit tibia
-
Figure 2. Leica SP 1600 saw microtome
-
Figure 3. Histological sections being obtained with Leica SP 1600 saw microtome
-
Figure 4. Histological section of mini dental implant in rabbit tibia stained with methylene blue and basic fuchsin
-
Figure 5. Histological section of standard implant in rabbit tibia stained with methylene blue and basic fuchsin
-
Figure 6. Micro CT scan images of the MDIs and Ankylos® embedded in rabbit bone 6 weeks post implantation
-
Table 1 Comparison of % BIC in both groups
-
Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the experimental and control group
| Sample | 3M™ESPE™ MDIs | Ankylos® |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | 67 | 54 |
| 2. | 59 | 67 |
| 3. | 54 | 45 |
| 4. | 51 | 58 |
| 5. | 47 | 57 |
| 6. | 64 | 49 |
| 7. | 50 | 54 |
| 8. | 60 | 56 |
| 9. | 56 | 60 |
| 10. | 61 | 53 |
| 11. | 62 | 59 |
| 12. | 61 | 55 |
| 13. | 59 | 59 |
| 14. | 45 | 51 |
| 15. | 58 | 59 |
| 16. | 54 | 62 |
| 17. | 66 | 62 |
| 18. | 56 | 57 |
- Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison
- Background : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (1)
- Background : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (2)
- Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (1)
- Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (2)
- Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (3)
- Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (4)
- Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (5)
- Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (6)
- Results : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants
- Discussion : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (1)
- Discussion : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants (2)
- Figure 1. Radiograph showing implants in the rabbit tibia
- Figure 2. Leica SP 1600 saw microtome
- Figure 3. Histological sections being obtained with Leica SP 1600 saw microtome
- Figure 4. Histological section of mini dental implant in rabbit tibia stained with methylene blue and basic fuchsin
- Figure 5. Histological section of standard implant in rabbit tibia stained with methylene blue and basic fuchsin
- Figure 6. Micro CT scan images of the MDIs and Ankylos® embedded in rabbit bone 6 weeks post implantation
- Table 1 Comparison of % BIC in both groups
- Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the experimental and control group