Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 4;8(2):56. doi: 10.3390/dj8020056

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Plots describing how (I) and (I)* (top) and IT and IT* (bottom) varied as a function of the fixture diameter when implants were inserted in blocks with different densities. When (I) and IT were normalized for the undersizing coefficient (right), the effect of bone density on the correlation between (I)* or IT* and the fixture diameter could be appreciated: the greater the density, the greater (I)* or IT*. Such an effect could not be appreciated for the non-normalized variables (I) and IT, because of the effect of different site preparations (that is, different undersizing) when placing the implants according to the implant manufacturer’s instructions. The linear fit was better (i.e., the Pearson’s r coefficients were higher) for normalized variables than for non-normalized ones (see Table 5).