Skip to main content

Table 1 Descriptive data of the implants included in the study, separated by group. The statistical unit is the implant

From: Difference in marginal bone loss around implants between short implant-supported partial fixed prostheses with and without cantilever: a retrospective clinical study

Factor

Prostheses without cantilever (%)

Prostheses with cantilever (%)

p value

Patients/Implants (n)

102a/333

43a/94

 

Follow-up (months) (mean ± SD, min–max)

 Clinical

154.6 ± 77.5 (37.3–364.6)

152.4 ± 80.1 (56.7–315.4)

0.645b

 Radiological

131.1 ± 77.4 (36.8–329.9)

139.0 ± 77.0 (38.0–300.6)

0.202b

Age (years)

 Mean ± SD

58.8 ± 14.1

58.4 ± 12.3

0.486b

 < 56

101 (30.4)

32 (33.7)

 

 56.0–65.9

116 (34.8)

33 (34.7)

0.780c,d

 ≥ 66

116 (34.8)

30 (31.6)

 

Sex

 Male

16 (43.8)

45 (47.4)

0.542c,d

 Female

187 (56.2)

50 (52.6)

 

Jaw

 Maxilla

107 (32.1)

50 (52.6)

< 0.001c,d

 Mandible

226 (67.9)

45 (47.4)

 

Jaw position

 Anterior

21 (6.3)

3 (3.2)

0.239c,d

 Posterior

312 (93.7)

92 (96.8)

 

Implant surface

 Turned

214 (64.3)

45 (47.4)

0.003c,d

 Modified

119 (35.7)

50 (52.6)

 

Implant diameter

 < 3.75 mm

18 (5.4)

9 (9.5)

 

 3.75 mm

287 (86.2)

67 (70.5)

0.001c,d

 > 3.75 mm

28 (8.4)

19 (20.0)

 

Prosthesis fixationc

 Cemented

2 (0.6)

2 (2.1)

0.219c,e

 Screwed

326 (99.4)

93 (97.9)

 

Bone quantity

 A–B

222 (66.7)

66 (69.5)

0.607c,d

 C–D–E

111 (33.3)

29 (30.5)

 

Bone quality

 1–2

144 (43.2)

36 (37.9)

0.352c,d

 3–4

189 (56.8)

59 (62.1)

 

Smokingf

 No

210 (80.5)

55 (71.4)

0.091c,d

 Yesg

51 (19.5)

22 (28.6)

 

Bruxismf

 No

229 (86.7)

65 (86.7)

0.986c,d

 Yes

35 (13.3)

10 (13.3)

 

Diabetesf

 No

235 (78.9)

63 (65.7)

0.078c,d

 Yes

23 (21.1)

12 (34.3)

 
  1. SD standard deviation
  2. aThe total number of patients of the study was 139, but some patients had more than one prosthesis, sometimes prostheses with and prostheses without cantilever. That is why the total number of patients in both groups here artificially amounts to “145”
  3. bMann–Whitney test
  4. cComparison of the distribution of cases, among the categories of each factor, between implants in prosthesis with and without cantilever
  5. dPearson’s Chi-squared test
  6. eFisher’s exact test
  7. fFor the cases with available information
  8. gIt includes 8 implants in 3 former smokers