Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2016-09-20, 16:58:27 | version 1.38.0
Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation 30 Volume 2 | Issue 3/2016 F r a c t u r e r e s i s t a n c e o f p r o v i s i o n a l i m p l a n t - p r o s t h e t i c a b u t m e n t s groups (p = 0.016), with the differences being statistically significant. The performance of the TP group was similar to that of the TD group (p= 0.886). CMPand PPwerealso homogenous, butwith a significantlylowerresistancethanthe other two groups (p = 1.000). Inacomparisonofthestatisticaldataforfrac- ture resistance of restorations subjected to fa- tiguing (Table 5), the group that showed the highest resistancewastheTD group (1,373.5 N). The groups with the lowest resistance were PP and CMP; both groups obtained values of bet- ween 200 N and 350 N. Fracture resistance levels were heterogeneous, and the Kruskal– Wallis test confirmed that there was no hetero- geneity in the distribution of resistance across the four groups (p < 0.001). When resistance distributionwas compared be- tween pairs of groups of fatigued specimens, statistically significant differences were identi- fied for all comparisons. Unlike the groups not subjectedtofatiguing,nogroupoffatiguedspeci- mens presented a homogenous distribution of resistancewhen paired comparisonswere made. CMP restorations showed lower fracture resistance than the rest of the groups, with the differences being statistically significant (PP: p = 0.036; TP: p = 0.036; TD: p = 0.036). The PPgroup also showed lowerresistancethan TP (p = 0.008) and TD specimens (p = 0.008), with the differences being statistically signifi- cant. In making a comparative analysis between the specimens subjected to fatiguing and those that were not fatigued, a slight decrease in fracture resistance was observed among all of the provi- sional restorations subjected to fatiguing (CMP, PP and TP). However, the TD group showed Table 7 Deformation data (mm). Table 8 Descriptive deformation data by group for abutments not subjected to fatiguing (mm). Table 9 Descriptive deformation data by group for abutments subjected to fatiguing (mm). Table 7 Specimen CMP PP TP TD 1 No data 2.330 0.867 0.825 2 0.794 2.222 3.796 0.845 3 1.449 2.006 2.258 0.978 4 No data 2.345 3.978 0.921 5 1.897 1.476 1.967 0.978 CMP PP TP TD N 5 5 4 4 Mean 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.3 Standard deviation 0.3 0.7 1.1 0.4 Minimum 0.9 0.6 1.2 0.7 Maximum 1.6 2.3 3.5 1.6 Median 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.3 CMP PP TP TD N 3 5 5 5 Mean 1.4 2.1 2.6 0.9 Standard deviation 0.6 0.4 1.3 0.1 Minimum 0.8 1.5 0.9 0.8 Maximum 1.9 2.3 4.0 1.0 Median 1.4 2.2 2.3 0.9 Table 8 Table 9 1 No data 2.3300.8670.825 20.7942.2223.7960.845 31.4492.0062.2580.978 4 No data 2.3453.9780.921 51.8971.4761.9670.978 N 5544 Mean 1.31.61.91.3 0.30.71.10.4 Minimum 0.90.61.20.7 Maximum 1.62.33.51.6 Median 1.41.41.61.3 N 3555 Mean 1.42.12.60.9 0.60.41.30.1 Minimum 0.81.50.90.8 Maximum 1.92.34.01.0 Median 1.42.22.30.9