Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objectives: To evaluate and to compare the effect of the conical neck design on marginal bone loss around the fixtures, when both implants were provided with micro-threads to the top of the fixture.
Materials And Methods: Two types of implant, one with a straight shape (S) and the other with a conical neck design (C) provided with a retentive element to the top of the fixture, were placed adjacent to each other in the partially edentulous areas of 12 patients. Bone loss around each implant was analyzed after 1 year of functional loading. The bone losses after loading were compared using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.
Results: The mean marginal bone losses (S, 0.05 + or - 0.09 mm; C, 0.07 + or - 0.14 mm) were not statistically significant between the two groups (P=0.578).
Conclusions: There was no significant difference between conical and straight neck implants in terms of marginal bone loss after 1 year of loading.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01871.x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!