Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-06-02, 10:40:19 | version 1.38.0
Table 1 Patients and implant outcomes. Fig. 7 Close-up view of the low-profile attachments (OT Equator). T w o i m p l a n t s s u p p o r t i n g a m a n d i b u l a r o v e r d e n t u r e Age (years) Sex Smoking Implants Implants Implants 8.5 mm length 10 mm length Implants 3.5 mm wide Patient 1 Patient 2 Patient 3 Patient 4 Patient 5 Patient 6 Patient 7 Patient 8 Patient 9 Total 67 74 77 71 66 64 53 72 68 F F F F F M F M F 7F/2M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 16 Mean ± SD 68 ± 7 MBL = Marginal bone loss; OHIP = Oral health impact profile; T0 = Baseline; T1 = One month after definitive prosthesis delivery; T2 = One year after definitive prosthesis delivery; BI = Bleeding index; PI = Plaque index; SD = Standard deviation. 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 9 Fig. 7 – Marginal bone levels: The levels were assessed using intraoral digital periapical radiographs (Digora Optime, SOREDEX, Tuusula, Finland; photostimulable phosphor imaging plate, size 2, pixel size of 30 μm, resolution of 17 lp/mm) at implant placement (baseline) and one year after loading. Intraoral radiographs were taken with the paralleling technique by means of a periapical radiograph with a commercially available film holder (Rinn XCP, Dentsply Rinn, Elgin, Ill., U.S.). The radiographs were accept- ed or rejected for evaluation based on the clarity of the implant threads. All readable radiographs were uploaded to an image analy- sis software package (DfW 2.8, SOREDEX) that was calibrated using the known length or diameter of the dental implants and displayed on a 24 in. LCD screen (iMac, Apple, Calif., U.S.) and evaluated under standardized conditions (ISO 12646:2004). The marginal bone levels were determined from linear measurements performed by an independent calibrated ex- aminer on each periapical radiograph, from the mesial and distal margin of the implant neck to the most coronal point where the bone appeared to be in contact with the implant. – Patient satisfaction with function and esthet- ics was assessed using a scale of 1–10, where 10 = fully satisfied, 5 = satisfied and 1 = not satisfied. Quality of life was assessed by the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-21) question- naire, which was completed by the partici- pants. The questionnaire consists of seven subscales (functional limitations, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical dis- ability, psychological disability, social disabil- 56 Volume 3 | Issue 2/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation