Does the Laser-Microtextured Short Implant Collar Design Reduce Marginal Bone Loss in Comparison with a Machined Collar?
Table 1
Descriptive summary of the study sample.
Study variable
Descriptive statistics
Sample size, (%)
Patients
62
Implants
103
Demographic variables
Gender, M/F, (%)
50 (48.5)/53 (51.5)
Age (years), mean ± sd (min–max)
52.24 ± 13.38 (23–76)
Health status variables
ASA classification
I
103 (%100)
Type of implant (), (%)
M
56 (54.4)
L
47 (45.6)
Region, (%)
Mandible (L/M)
30 (29.1)/35 (34.0)
Maxilla (L/M)
17 (16.5)/21 (20.4)
Diameter, (%)
3.8 (L/M)
35 (34.0)/42 (40.8)
4.6 (L/M)
12 (11.7)/14 (13.6)
Length, (%)
10.5 (L/M)
31 (30.1)/41 (39.8)
12 (L/M)
16 (15.5)/15 (14.6)
Restoration, (%)
SC (L/M)
23 (22.3)/22 (21.4)
FPD (L/M)
24 (23.3)/34 (33.0)
ASA, American Society of Anesthesiology; M, machined collar group; L, machined and laser-microtextured collar group; SC, single crown; FPD, fixed partial denture.
