Table 2 Mean BIC% value of each group after 15 days of healing : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
Table 2 Mean BIC% value of each group after 15 days of healing : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on
author: I De Tullio, M Berardini, D Di Iorio, F Perfetti, G Perfetti | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
| Group | BIC% (mean ± SD) |
|---|---|
| A | 39.08 ± 15.85 |
| B | 37.35 ± 15.76 |
| C | 25.28 ± 8.97 |
Table 2 Mean BIC% value of each group after 15 days of healing
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Introduction : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [1]
- Introduction : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [2]
- Materials and methods : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [1]
- Materials and methods : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [2]
- Materials and methods : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [3]
- Results : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Discussion : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [1]
- Discussion : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [2]
- Conclusions : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Availability of data and materials : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- References : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [1]
- References : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [2]
- References : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [3]
- Acknowledgements : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Funding : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Author information : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Ethics declarations : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Additional information : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Rights and permissions : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- About this article : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Table 1 Implants details of both groups: screw pitch, smooth neck length, surface treatments, and roughness : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant
- Table 2 Mean BIC% value of each group after 15 days of healing : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on
- Table 3 Mean BIC% value of each group after 30 days of healing : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on
- Fig. 1. Scanning electron microscopy picture of group A implant surface : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant
- Fig. 2. Scanning electron microscopy picture of group B implant surface : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant
- Fig. 3. Scanning electron microscopy picture of group C implant surface : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant
- Fig. 4. Exemplificative photo of implant placement in sheep iliac crest (left side). All implant groups were inserted in the same bone host : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant
- Fig. 5. Optic microscope photo (× 9 magnification) after 15 days of implantation. Left side: machined implant (group C). Central photo: sandblasted and acid-etched implant (group A). Right side: laser-treated implant : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant
- Fig. 6. Optic microscope photo (× 9 magnification) after 30 days of implantation. Left side: machined implant (group C). Central photo: sandblasted and acid-etched implant (group A). Right side: laser-treated implant : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant