02 and AqAnalisys, Lynx Tecnologia Eletronica
Ltda, São Paulo, Brazil). The tests were repeated 3 times for each load. Between trials the strain gauges were allowed GSK458 manufacturer to recover. Gauges that did not recover to zero strain after 3 min were recalibrated (zeroed) in the software prior to the next experiment. All plastic mandibles (n = 10) were tested sequentially for seven conditions. The groups are identified as: Cont, B1, B1/SpCR, B1/SpW, B1/SpWCR, B1/SpFgExt, and B1/SpFgInt. (1) The Cont group, with no bone loss and no splinting, represented the control group (Fig. 3A and B). Fig. 3. A plastic mandible for the seven experimental dental support conditions. (A) Buccal view in Cont group (no bone loss). (B) Lingual view in Cont group. (C) Bl group (bone loss). (D) Bl/SpCR group (bone loss, composite resin splint). (E) Bl/SpW group (bone loss, wire splint). (F) Bl/SpWCR group (bone loss, combination of wires and composite resin splint). (G) Bl/SpFgExt group (bone loss, extracoronal fibre-reinforced composite
and composite resin splint). (H) Bl/SpFgInt group (bone loss, intracoronal fibre-reinforced composite and composite resin splint). The collected strain data was subjected to a 3-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the effect of support tissue condition (with or without bone loss), tooth region, and mandible surface, as well as the interaction between these 3 parameters on the strain under 50, 100, and 150 N loading. selleck compound The Scheffe’s test was performed to determine INNO-406 chemical structure differences between factor levels. All tests were performed at a significance level of α = .05. Statistical software (SPSS/PC, Version 10.0, SPSS, Chicago, IL) was used for statistical data analysis. The results of the 3-way ANOVA for the support tissue conditions, tooth regions, and mandible surfaces are presented in Table 1 for 50 N loading, in Table 2 for 100 N and in Table 3 for 150 N. The 3-way ANOVA indicated significant differences between the three factors (support tissue conditions, tooth regions, and mandibular surfaces; P < .05), irrespective
of load level. Of the 2-factor interactions, only the interaction between tooth region and mandible surface at the 50 N load level was significant (P = .03). The results of Scheffe’s multiple comparison test are shown in Table 4 for each of the three different load levels. At each load level same letters indicate mean strain values that were not significantly different (P > .05). Irrespective of the load levels, the mean strain values measured on the buccal surfaces were significantly higher than on the lingual surfaces, indicated by the different number indices (P < .001). The mean strain values obtained at the central incisor region were significantly higher than for the lateral incisor region, irrespective of load level or mandible surface (P < .001).