Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2016-03-07, 22:38:59 | version 1.38.0
Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation 52 Volume 2 | Issue 1/2016 unbiased examiner. Data were expressed as ISQ values (1–100). Mean values were collated by group and compared. S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s The statistical analyses were performed with SPSS software (Version 13.0; SPSS, Chicago, Ill., U.S.). For the evaluation of the normality distri- butionsofeachgroup,theShapiro–Wilktestwas used. A two-way ANOVA was used to evaluate differences within groups and the impact of the operator on the stability parameters. Multiple comparisons were performed using the Tukey test. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Data were expressed as meanvalue ± S.D. and rangeswere calculated for each group. Results Allofthe implantswere mechanicallystable, but implant stability differed between groups. Re- garding bone density, the results showed higher stability (p < 0.05) evaluated by ISQ in dense bone (Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4) compared with soft bone(Groups5,6,7and8).Regardingtheeffects of the implant design, the results showed that the tapered implants with a progressive thread design had increased primary stability in soft bone compared with the tapered implants with a symmetric thread design for different evalua- tiongroups(Groups5,6,7and8;p<0.05).How- ever,withinthedensebonegroups,nosignificant differences in terms of stability were found for the two implant thread designs (Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4; p > 0.05). The evaluation by IT values did not show differences in stability in soft bone (p > 0.05; Tables 2 & 3). Regarding the effects of the operator’s level of experience on the implant stability, no statis- tically significant differences were observed between the implant groups in IT or ISQ values (p > 0.05; Tables 2 & 3). Discussion Some authors consider that the implant surviv- al rate is higher for experienced clinicians,10–13 while others have found similar cumulative im- plant survivalrates independent ofthe clinicians’ level of experience.14, 15 However, there is a lack of research in the literature regarding the effect of level of experi- ence on primary stability; therefore, the present Figs. 3a & b Implant designs used for the implant stability evaluation. (a) Tapered implant with a symmetric thread design. (b) Tapered implant with a progressive thread design. F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g p r i m a r y s t a b i l i t y o f t a p e r e d i m p l a n t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t t h r e a d d e s i g n Fig. 3 b a