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:
- 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
- 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 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