Does Oral Implant Design Affect Marginal Bone Loss? Results of a Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial
Table 2
Radiographic and clinical outcomes.
Prosthetic delivery (D)
1-year follow-up (1 y)
Significance
n
Mean
SD
n
Mean
SD
D → 1 y
Ace/Max
Bone level (BL)
0.256
Overall
[mm]
81
−0.43
0.7
80
−0.44
0.8
0.984
Ace
[mm]
34
−0.49
0.7
33
−0.35
0.9
0.386
Max
[mm]
47
−0.39
0.7
47
−0.50
0.7
0.385
Significance
0.558
0.507
Probing depth (PD)
0.424
Overall
[mm]
79
2.6
1.0
81
2.7
0.8
0.223
Ace
[mm]
32
2.4
0.9
34
2.9
0.8
0.001
Max
[mm]
47
2.7
1.0
47
2.6
0.7
0.628
Significance
0.504
0.447
Clinical attachment level (CAL)
0.063
Overall
[mm]
79
2.6
1.3
81
2.4
0.8
0.303
Ace
[mm]
32
2.3
1.2
34
2.5
0.8
0.113
Max
[mm]
47
2.8
1.4
47
2.4
0.9
0.013
Significance
0.605
0.213
Gingival recession (GR)
0.440
Overall
[mm]
79
0.4
0.9
81
0.1
0.3
0.001
Ace
[mm]
32
0.2
0.5
34
0.2
0.3
0.633
Max
[mm]
47
0.6
1.1
47
0.1
0.4
<0.001
Significance
0.507
0.695
Modified plaque index (mPI)
0.116
Overall
79
0.3
0.6
81
0.3
0.4
0.889
Ace
32
0.1
0.3
34
0.3
0.5
0.001
Max
47
0.4
0.7
47
0.2
0.3
0.072
Significance
0.584
0.171
Modified bleeding index (mBI)
0.025
Overall
79
0.2
0.4
81
0.5
0.6
<0.001
Ace
32
0.2
0.4
34
0.6
0.9
0.005
Max
47
0.2
0.3
47
0.4
0.4
0.006
Significance
0.468
0.033
mixed models: changes between D and 1 y and differences regarding the implant type (Ace/Max). mixed models: for every timepoint (D, 1 y) regarding the implant type (Ace/Max). radiograph (one control implant) at 1 y was insufficient for BL measurements. file (two control implants) including clinical measurements was missing for D.
