Table 2 Spearman rank correlation coefficient values between removal torque (N cm), removal energy [N cm/rad (0.01 J)], and connection stiffness [N cm/rad] for SAE-HD and SAE implants at 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively (n = 6; P < 0.01) : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles|palmerah.implantgigi.com

			Removal torque	Removal energy	Connection stiffness
Spearman’s rho	Removal torque	Coefficient	1.000	0.722	0.352
Sig. (two-tailed)		0.000	0.092
N	24	24	24
Removal energy	Coefficient	0.722	1.000	(−) 0.091
Sig. (two-tailed)	0.000		0.710
N	19	19	19
Connection stiffness	Coefficient	0.352	(−) 0.091	1.000
Sig. (two-tailed)	0.092	0.710
N	21	21	21

Abstract : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [1]

Abstract : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [2]

Background : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [1]

Background : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [2]

Methods : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [1]

Methods : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [2]

Methods : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [3]

Results : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles

Discussion : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [1]

Discussion : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [2]

Discussion : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [3]

Conclusions : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles

Notes : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles

References : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [1]

References : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [2]

References : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [3]

References : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [4]

References : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [5]

Acknowledgements : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles

Author information : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [1]

Author information : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [2]

Ethics declarations : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles

Rights and permissions : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles

About this article : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles

Table 1 One-way ANOVA variance and Tukey’s post hoc test values of removal torque (N cm), removal energy [N cm/rad (0.01 J)], and connection stiffness [N cm/rad] for SAE-HD and SAE implants at 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively (n = 6; P < 0.05) : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles

Table 2 Spearman rank correlation coefficient values between removal torque (N cm), removal energy [N cm/rad (0.01 J)], and connection stiffness [N cm/rad] for SAE-HD and SAE implants at 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively (n = 6; P < 0.01) : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles

Fig. 1. Two pairs of implants (10 mm × 4 mm, L × Ø) from each of the experimental groups were placed in each tibia with an alternating fashion in terms of medio-distal positioning regarding the group, but with the first group chosen at random. Implants were placed with an inter-implant distance of 1 cm : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant

Fig. 2. Adaptation of Shimadzu universal testing machine for performing removal torque test of dental implants. a General view. b Assembly detail of connection between Allen keys socket and the implant placed in the tibia : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant

Fig. 3. Representative curve of the torque test for implants. a Graph of torque versus angular displacement with linear regression curve, and equation, representing the connection stiffness. b Determination procedure of unscrewing implant work up to test’s maximum torque : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant

Fig. 4. Comparison among secant and tangent methods to calculate the connection stiffness values, which reveals the absence of mathematical discrepancy : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant

Fig. 5. Mean and standard deviation of the biomechanical data at both observation periods (P > 0.05). a Removal torque. b Removal energy. c Connection stiffness : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant

Abstract : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study

Background : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [1]

Background : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [2]

Methods : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [1]

Methods : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [2]

Results : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [1]

Results : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [2]