Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Erratum
  • Open Access

Erratum to: Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison

  • 1Email author,
  • 2,
  • 1, 3 and
  • 1
International Journal of Implant Dentistry20173:28

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0088-0

  • Received: 12 June 2017
  • Accepted: 12 June 2017
  • Published:

The original article was published in International Journal of Implant Dentistry 2017 3:15

Erratum

Upon Publication of the original manuscript [1] several discrepancies were highlighted in the following sections; Statistical methods and Results. These errors have since been acknowledged and corrected in this erratum.

The text in the subsection “Statistical methods” originally read:

“Mean values and standard deviations were calculated for bone implant contact (BIC). Univariate analysis was done for all the evaluations. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the differences between the two implants. P value <0.05 was considered significant. Statistical analyses were carried out with the help of SPSS statistical software version 18.”

This should read:

“Mean values and standard deviations were calculated for bone implant contact (BIC). The mean differences of % BIC between the groups were verified through a Mann–Whitney nonparametric test, P value <0.05 was considered significant. Statistical analyses were carried out with the help of SPSS statistical software version 18.”

The final paragraph of the results section reads:

The median value of% BIC was 58.5 and the MDI group (IQR 7) and control group was 57.0 (IQR 5.0) (Tables 1 and 2).The mean differences of % BIC between the groups were verified through Mann–Whitney nonparametric test. There was no significant difference between the % bone implant contact (BIC) length of both the implants (P value >0.05).

This should read:

Percentage of BIC ranged from 45 to 67% in both the groups. The median value of % BIC was 58.5, MDI group (IQR 8), and control group was 57.0 (IQR 5.5) (Tables 1 and 2). The mean differences of % BIC between the groups were verified through a Mann–Whitney nonparametric test. There was no significant difference between the % bone implant contact (BIC) length of both the implants (P value >0 .05).

Notes

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, 2001 McGill College Avenue, Suite 500, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1G1, Canada
(2)
Faculty of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
(3)
Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Reference

  1. Dhaliwal JS, Albuquerque RF, Murshed M, Feine JS. Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison. Int J Implant Dent. 2017;3(1):15.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement