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 [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