Table 2 Outcome success 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
author: David E Simmons, Pooja Maney, Austin G Teitelbaum, Susan Billiot, Lomesh J Popat, A Archontia Palaiologou | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
Implant success
Clinically immobile when tested manually and/or with RFA (minimum ISQ = 65)
Absence of peri-implant radiolucency present on an undistorted radiograph
Absence of unresolved pain, discomfort, infection or neuropathy, or peri-implant soft tissue complications attributable to the implant
Implant placement that does not preclude delivery of a prosthetic crown with an appearance that is satisfactory to the patient and the dentist
Crestal bone loss that is <1.5 mm after the first year of loading followed by not more than 0.2 mm of annual crestal bone loss thereafter
Prosthesis success
Absence of unresolved peri-implant soft-tissue complications, such as bleeding, swelling, suppuration or recession, attributable to the prosthetic restoration
Absence of unresolved prosthetic complications, such as screw loosening or porcelain fracture
Absence of esthetic complications, such as implant or abutment visibility, or compromised porcelain translucency or mismatched prosthetic tooth color
Early loading success: a functional provisional crown placed ≥3 weeks and <3–6 months after implant placement, followed by delivery of a definitive crown after 12 months of function
Table 2 Outcome success 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
| Implant success | Clinically immobile when tested manually and/or with RFA (minimum ISQ = 65) |
| Absence of peri-implant radiolucency present on an undistorted radiograph | |
| Absence of unresolved pain, discomfort, infection or neuropathy, or peri-implant soft tissue complications attributable to the implant | |
| Implant placement that does not preclude delivery of a prosthetic crown with an appearance that is satisfactory to the patient and the dentist | |
| Crestal bone loss that is <1.5 mm after the first year of loading followed by not more than 0.2 mm of annual crestal bone loss thereafter | |
| Prosthesis success | Absence of unresolved peri-implant soft-tissue complications, such as bleeding, swelling, suppuration or recession, attributable to the prosthetic restoration |
| Absence of unresolved prosthetic complications, such as screw loosening or porcelain fracture | |
| Absence of esthetic complications, such as implant or abutment visibility, or compromised porcelain translucency or mismatched prosthetic tooth color | |
| Early loading success: a functional provisional crown placed ≥3 weeks and <3–6 months after implant placement, followed by delivery of a definitive crown after 12 months of function |
Table 2 Outcome success 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