Table 2 Aesthetical Outcomes at T = 12 M (VAS Score) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
Table 2 Aesthetical Outcomes at T = 12 M (VAS Score) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
author: Rmy Tanimura, Shiro Suzuki | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
Patients
Position
CR
Patients
Position
M4M
T = 0
T = 12
T = 0
T = 12
AMB
13
10
7
AMB
23
10
7
14
6
5
24
8
3
16
8
8
26
8
5
17
10
10
27
8
5
ROG
24
10
7
ROG
14
10
6
26
10
10
16
10
7
27
10
10
17
10
7
NEU
11
4
3
NEU
21
6
5
13
8
7
23
6
5
16
8
7
25
10
10
POU
36
10
9
POU
27
10
10
TRA
34
10
8
TRA
35
10
10
36
10
10
37
10
10
PHU
21
4
3
PHU
11
6
5
25
10
5
14
8
8
26
8
5
16
10
9
27
8
5
17
10
9
ORT
15
10
7
ORT
14
10
10
16
10
7
SUG
45
10
8
SUG
35
8
8
47
10
10
37
8
8
KAI
46
8
6
FRA
45
8
8
FRA
25
10
10
46
10
10
26
8
8
47
10
10
27
6
6
SHI
37
6
4
SHI
16
8
6
HAS
35
10
10
HAS
45
10
10
36
8
8
46
8
8
37
8
8
47
8
8
Average
8.64
7.43
Average
8.71
7.50
SD
1.81
2.23
SD
1.46
2.00
Table 2 Aesthetical Outcomes at T = 12 M (VAS Score)
Serial posts:
-
Abstract : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
-
Background : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
-
Methods : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [1]
-
Methods : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [2]
-
Methods : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [3]
-
Results : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
-
Discussion : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [3]
-
References : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [1]
-
References : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [2]
-
Table 1 ᅟ : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
-
Table 2 Aesthetical Outcomes at T = 12 M (VAS Score) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
-
Table 3 Surface areas changes of access-hole filling. Unit: % : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
-
Table 4 Disappearance of the overfilling. Unit: % : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
-
Fig. 1. Brush-dip technique : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
-
Fig. 2. Occlusal contact point : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
-
Fig. 3. a–e (Filling surface changes): a (ROG, T = 0). b (ROG, T = 1 M). c (ROG, T = 3 M). d (ROG, T = 6 M). e (ROG, T = 12 M) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
-
Fig. 4. Margin depth measurement localization (example: TRA, T = 12 M) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
-
Fig. 5. Depth and angle at the margin : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
-
Fig. 6. Access-hole filling surface areas measurement, average : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
-
Fig. 7. a, b (The marginal discrepancy pattern for group CR and M4M). a Group CR (1: Ceramic surface, 2: CR surface) Units of the axis are in μm. b Group M4M (1: Ceramic surface, 2: M4M surface) Units of the axis are in μm : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
| Patients |
Position CR | Patients |
Position M4M | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T = 0 | T = 12 | T = 0 | T = 12 | ||||
| AMB | 13 | 10 | 7 | AMB | 23 | 10 | 7 |
| 14 | 6 | 5 | 24 | 8 | 3 | ||
| 16 | 8 | 8 | 26 | 8 | 5 | ||
| 17 | 10 | 10 | 27 | 8 | 5 | ||
| ROG | 24 | 10 | 7 | ROG | 14 | 10 | 6 |
| 26 | 10 | 10 | 16 | 10 | 7 | ||
| 27 | 10 | 10 | 17 | 10 | 7 | ||
| NEU | 11 | 4 | 3 | NEU | 21 | 6 | 5 |
| 13 | 8 | 7 | 23 | 6 | 5 | ||
| 16 | 8 | 7 | 25 | 10 | 10 | ||
| POU | 36 | 10 | 9 | POU | 27 | 10 | 10 |
| TRA | 34 | 10 | 8 | TRA | 35 | 10 | 10 |
| 36 | 10 | 10 | 37 | 10 | 10 | ||
| PHU | 21 | 4 | 3 | PHU | 11 | 6 | 5 |
| 25 | 10 | 5 | 14 | 8 | 8 | ||
| 26 | 8 | 5 | 16 | 10 | 9 | ||
| 27 | 8 | 5 | 17 | 10 | 9 | ||
| ORT | 15 | 10 | 7 | ORT | 14 | 10 | 10 |
| 16 | 10 | 7 | |||||
| SUG | 45 | 10 | 8 | SUG | 35 | 8 | 8 |
| 47 | 10 | 10 | 37 | 8 | 8 | ||
| KAI | 46 | 8 | 6 | ||||
| FRA | 45 | 8 | 8 | FRA | 25 | 10 | 10 |
| 46 | 10 | 10 | 26 | 8 | 8 | ||
| 47 | 10 | 10 | 27 | 6 | 6 | ||
| SHI | 37 | 6 | 4 | SHI | 16 | 8 | 6 |
| HAS | 35 | 10 | 10 | HAS | 45 | 10 | 10 |
| 36 | 8 | 8 | 46 | 8 | 8 | ||
| 37 | 8 | 8 | 47 | 8 | 8 | ||
| Average | 8.64 | 7.43 | Average | 8.71 | 7.50 | ||
| SD | 1.81 | 2.23 | SD | 1.46 | 2.00 | ||
Table 2 Aesthetical Outcomes at T = 12 M (VAS Score)
- Abstract : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Background : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Methods : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [1]
- Methods : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [2]
- Methods : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [3]
- Results : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Discussion : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [3]
- References : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [1]
- References : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [2]
- Table 1 ᅟ : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Table 2 Aesthetical Outcomes at T = 12 M (VAS Score) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Table 3 Surface areas changes of access-hole filling. Unit: % : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Table 4 Disappearance of the overfilling. Unit: % : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Fig. 1. Brush-dip technique : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 2. Occlusal contact point : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 3. a–e (Filling surface changes): a (ROG, T = 0). b (ROG, T = 1 M). c (ROG, T = 3 M). d (ROG, T = 6 M). e (ROG, T = 12 M) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 4. Margin depth measurement localization (example: TRA, T = 12 M) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 5. Depth and angle at the margin : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 6. Access-hole filling surface areas measurement, average : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 7. a, b (The marginal discrepancy pattern for group CR and M4M). a Group CR (1: Ceramic surface, 2: CR surface) Units of the axis are in μm. b Group M4M (1: Ceramic surface, 2: M4M surface) Units of the axis are in μm : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant