Table 1 Patient selection criteria : 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
author: David E Simmons, Pooja Maney, Austin G Teitelbaum, Susan Billiot, Lomesh J Popat, A Archontia Palaiologou | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
Inclusion
Male or female
At least 18 years old
Healthy enough to undergo routine implant surgery and subsequent dental treatment
Partially edentulous requiring single dental implants in the maxilla
Adequate volume of native or grafted bone to accommodate dental implants at least 8 mm long
No active infections
Physically, emotionally, and financially able to undergo planned implant procedures
Adequate compliance to meet study requirements and necessary appointments
Exclusion
Medical need for antibiotic premedication for infective endocarditis, artificial joints, or any other medication
Uncontrolled hypertension
Uncontrolled diabetes
Serological human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive
History of significant heart, stomach, liver, kidney, blood, immune system, or other organ impairment or systemic disease that would prevent undergoing the proposed treatment
Smoke cigarettes or other tobacco products
Use of investigational drugs during the previous month
Unresolved dental conditions likely to require exiting the study for treatment, such as deep cavities, abscesses, or moderate to severe periodontal disease
History of radiation therapy to the head and neck
Unwilling or inability to sign the informed consent form
Failure to demonstrate willingness to return for a required number of visits
Need immediate dental implant placement following tooth extraction
Table 1 Patient selection criteria
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
| Inclusion | Male or female |
| At least 18 years old | |
| Healthy enough to undergo routine implant surgery and subsequent dental treatment | |
| Partially edentulous requiring single dental implants in the maxilla | |
| Adequate volume of native or grafted bone to accommodate dental implants at least 8 mm long | |
| No active infections | |
| Physically, emotionally, and financially able to undergo planned implant procedures | |
| Adequate compliance to meet study requirements and necessary appointments | |
| Exclusion | Medical need for antibiotic premedication for infective endocarditis, artificial joints, or any other medication |
| Uncontrolled hypertension | |
| Uncontrolled diabetes | |
| Serological human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive | |
| History of significant heart, stomach, liver, kidney, blood, immune system, or other organ impairment or systemic disease that would prevent undergoing the proposed treatment | |
| Smoke cigarettes or other tobacco products | |
| Use of investigational drugs during the previous month | |
| Unresolved dental conditions likely to require exiting the study for treatment, such as deep cavities, abscesses, or moderate to severe periodontal disease | |
| History of radiation therapy to the head and neck | |
| Unwilling or inability to sign the informed consent form | |
| Failure to demonstrate willingness to return for a required number of visits | |
| Need immediate dental implant placement following tooth extraction |
Table 1 Patient selection criteria
- 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