Premium
Active Tactile Sensibility of Single‐Tooth Implants versus Natural Dentition: A Split‐Mouth Double‐Blind Randomized Clinical Trial
Author(s) -
Kazemi Mahmoud,
Geramipanah Farideh,
Negahdari Ramin,
Rakhshan Vahid
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12053
Subject(s) - dentistry , medicine , implant , dentition , orthodontics , friedman test , mathematics , surgery , statistical hypothesis testing , statistics
Background Unlike passive sensitivity of implants/teeth that is assessed more, only three controversial studies have compared active tactile sensibility ( ATS ) of implants and teeth. Purpose We aimed to explore the difference between the ATS of teeth and single‐tooth implants. Methods The ATS of single‐tooth implants and contralateral teeth was measured in 25 patients after they bit on gold and placebo foils 0‐ to 70‐μm thick, each for five times, in a random order blinded to patients and assessor, carried out at two sessions. Based on the experimental range of 0 μm (mock trials) to 70 μm, the sigmoid shape of psychometric curve was estimated to locate the 50% values as the ATS thresholds for each tooth or implant. ATS Data were analyzed using paired and unpaired t ‐tests and multiple linear regression (α = 0.05, β ≤ 0.1). Also, equivalence testing approach was used to assess semi‐objectively the clinical significance. Results Average ATS values for teeth and implants were 21.4 ± 6.55 μm and 30.0 ± 7.55 μm, respectively ( p = .0001 [paired t ‐test]). None of the geometric characteristics of implants nor duration of implant in function were correlated with the ATS ( p > .4 [regression]). Age was positively associated with the ATS of both implants and teeth ( p ≤ .019 [regression]). Tooth ATS (but not implant ATS ) was significantly higher in males compared with females ( p = .050 [unpaired t ‐test]), which contributed to a generalizable tooth‐implant difference higher than 8‐μm clinical equivalence margin in females. The ATS was not significantly different between arches or between anterior/posterior regions ( p > .6). Conclusion There was a slight but statistically significant difference between implant and tooth tactile sensitivities.