Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(60)
Open image in new window Fig. 1 Different implant types.
No statistically significant differences between the implant types at 30 s.
A comprehensive review of implant types, in relation to implant motility and biocompatibility, is included.
All implant types exhibited degraded performance under circular and horizontal bone loss conditions.
The latter can be of interest since different implant types possess different prosthetic connections that suit different types of Smartpegs.
Analysis of variance indicated statistically significant differences among the implant types (F = 33.3, df 4, p < 0.001).
The average displacement on the medial compared to the lateral side was always smaller for all implant types.
The four implant types showed different in vitro release profiles over the 12-week period, which changed significantly upon implantation.
ISQ values were averaged and compared between implant types and times using Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed-rank tests at a significance level of p < 0.05.
Considering the diversity of the studies and implant types, no definitive recommendations can be made, especially with regard to the best instruments and implant design to be used.
These simulations were carried out on 4 specific implant types – Camlog Plus, Astra Osseo Speed, Straumann BL and Straumann S/SP.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com