Skip to main content
. 2012 Jul 20;3:1758736012452181. doi: 10.1177/1758736012452181

Table 1.

Mean distances (mm) Group Mean Standard error Minimum Median Maximum Cases p Value
Outer area PM CAST −0.024 0.005 −0.047 −0.021 0.003 10 p < 0.01
PIB −0.002 0.001 −0.008 −0.003 0.006 10
Inner area PM CAST 0.028 0.004 0.010 0.030 0.046 10 p < 0.01
PIB −0.008 0.002 −0.019 −0.008 0.000 10
Total PM CAST 0.001 0.003 −0.010 0.000 0.014 10 p = 0.13
PIB −0.005 0.001 −0.007 −0.005 0.000 10
Outer area M CAST −0.016 0.005 −0.046 −0.013 0.006 10 p = 0.02
PIB −0.001 0.003 −0.015 −0.001 0.012 10
Inner area M CAST 0.026 0.008 −0.005 0.024 0.082 10 p < 0.01
PIB −0.007 0.002 −0.018 −0.006 0.000 10
Total M CAST 0.006 0.005 −0.013 0.005 0.045 10 p = 0.23
PIB −0.004 0.002 −0.016 −0.003 0.003 10
Total PM and M CAST 0.003 0.003 −0.010 −0.002 0.026 10 p = 0.07
PIB −0.005 0.001 −0.011 −0.004 0.000 10

CAD: computer-aided design; CAM: computer-aided manufacturing; inner area = towards the pontic; outer area: mesial/distal areas of the bridge; M: molar; PIB: procera implant bridge; PM: premolar; ROIs: regions of interest; total: average of inner and outer areas.

The PM and M implant surfaces were virtually cut into half resulting in four different areas for fit assessment.