Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2018-04-05, 09:17:31 | version 1.38.0
I n d i v i d u a l i z e d t i t a n i u m s c a f f o l d s Table 5c Parameter Defect regions in % (number of cases) Yes Gingival morphotype Surgical access Regio iCTS A1 A2 B Not specified Poncho incision Ridge incision Split-thickness flap Palatal flap (rotational) Tunnel technique Not specified 1 2 3 4 5 10 Regio iCTS, coded 1–2 tooth width 3–4 tooth width ≥ 5 tooth width Membrane coverage Yes No * Fisher exact test. ** Chi-squared test. 52.2 4.3 40.9 2.6 10.4 73.9 7.8 3.5 2.6 1.7 39.1 36.5 17.4 4.3 1.7 0.9 75.7 21.7 2.6 68.7 31.3 (60) (5) (47) (3) (12) (85) (9) (4) (3) (2) (45) (42) (20) (5) (2) (1) (87) (25) (3) (79) (36) Wound dehiscence in % (number of cases) No 40.0 8.0 52.0 0 4.0 72.0 12.0 4.0 8.0 0 28.0 32.0 20.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 64.0 36.0 0 69.2 30.8 (10) (2) (13) (1) (18) (3) (1) (2) (7) (8) (5) (3) (1) (1) (16) (9) (18) (8) 56.6 3.3 37.8 3.3 12.2 74.4 6.7 3.3 1.2 2.2 42.2 37.8 16.7 2.2 1.1 0 78.9 18.9 2.2 68.5 31.5 (50) (3) (34) (3) (11) (67) (6) (3) (1) (2) (38) (34) (15) (2) (1) (71) (17) (2) (61) (28) Table 6a Parameter Yes Wound dehiscence in % (number of cases) No P value 0.183* 0.205* 0.062* 0.173* 0.927** P value Age 55.3 ± 12.7 years 53.6 ± 12.6 years 55.8 ± 12.8 years 0.495* Sex Smoker Periodontitis Male Female Yes No Yes No 56.5% 43.5% (65) (43) 11.3% 88.7 (13) (102) 60.9% 39.1% (70) (45) * Mann–Whitney U test. ** Chi-squared test. *** Fisher exact test. 68.0 32.0 16.0 84.0 48.0 52.0 (17) (8) (4) (21) (12) (13) 53.3 46.7 10.0 90.0 64.4 35.6 (48) (42) (9) (81) (58) (32) 0.191** 0.475*** 0.136** Table 6b Possible influencing factors Age Male Smoker Periodontitis OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval. Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis OR 0.986 1.859 1.714 0.509 P value 0.436 0.194 0.406 0.140 OR 0.985 1.860 1.933 0.487 95% CI P value 0.950–1.021 0.714–4.849 0.518–7.209 0.195–1.219 0.406 0.204 0.327 0.124 grafts subsequent to exposure.5 By using tita- nium mesh in combination with particulate grafts, the user is able to perform larger-sized bone grafting, and the technique appears to be much more forgiving of exposure. The results of our retrospective study are in strong accordance with these results. Our study has some limitations. The data were analyzed retrospectively; thus, information regarding postoperative complications and some surgical parameters was missing in a few cases. The clinical outcome of iCTSs was not compared with that of conventional titanium scaffolds or in combination with other Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 4 | Issue 1/2018 45 Table 5c Effects of surgical para- meters on wound dehiscence. Total number of defect regions: n = 115. Table 6a Distribution of possible influencing factors. Total number of defect regions: n = 115. Table 6b Logistic regression analysis on possible influencing factors. Total number of defect regions: n = 115.