Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-03-17, 11:08:54 | version 1.38.0
P h y s i o l o g i c a l b o n e r e m o d e l i n g o n O s s t e m i m p l a n t s Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 4 Virtual planning. From left to right, teeth #47, 46 and 44. Fig. 5 Periapical radiograph taken after placement of the implants. confidence interval (CI), whereas ordinal and dichotomous variables are presented as per- centages. The implant or the restoration were the statistical units of analysis. Diferences in the proportion of patients with prosthesis fail- ures, implant failures and complications (dicho- tomous outcomes) were compared between the groups using the Fisher exact test. Diferences in mean for continuous outcomes (bone level and ISQ) were compared at patient level by in- dependent samples t-tests and one-way analy- sis of variance, respectively. Comparisons between each time point and the baseline mea- surements were made by paired tests, in order to detect any changes in marginal periimplant bone levels. All statistical comparisons were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance. Results – Thickness of the gingival biotype: This was assessed at the time of surgery using a perio- dontal probe (PCPUNC156, Hu-Friedy Italy, Milan, Italy) or a tension-free caliper. The gin- gival biotype was considered thin if the mea- surement was 1 mm and thick if > 1 mm. S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s Patients data were collected in an MS Excel spreadsheet. A statistician with expertise in dentistry analyzed the data and performed all of the statistical analysis using SPSS for Macin- tosh (Version 22.0; IBM, Chicago, Ill., U.S.). The distributions of continuous variables are given as mean ± standard deviation, median and 95% A total of 243 sandblasted and acid-etched bone level implants featuring an 11° Morse taper con- nection were placed in 90 consecutive patients recruited and treated between September 2014 and December 2015 and followed for at least one year after loading. All of the initially selected pa- tients were included and no patients dropped out of the study. The data of all of the patients were evaluated in the statistical analysis. Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 3 | Issue 1/2017 73