Sentence examples for mean insertion torque from inspiring English sources

The mean insertion torque was lower for Blossom implants (P < 0.001).

Dental implants were placed at a mean insertion torque > 30 N cm in both groups (Table 3).

The comparison between groups was made considering the mean insertion torque and the maximum mean pullout strength with the variance analysis (ANOVA; p≤ 0.05).

The small buttress thread screw with a large taper displayed greater mean insertion torque at one-third insertion (4.1 ± 0.57 in-lb v 3.2 ± 0.49 in-lb, P =.03), whereas the large buttress thread screw with a small taper displayed greater mean insertion torque at full insertion (11.1 ± 0.74 in-lb v 9.4 ± 1.3 in-lb, P =.012).

Furthermore, the mean insertion torque value observed in our study for the OSP group was lower (27.6 Ncm) than that observed by Lozano-Carrascal et al. in the maxilla for the same implant (35.8 Ncm) [20].

At the last turn until complete screw implantation, the mean insertion torque was 3.0 ± 0.33 Nm.

Statistical evaluation was performed by a one-way ANOVA-test, Student's t-test, and post hoc multiple comparisons by Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) to test mean insertion-torque-values and variance in each group and mean difference significance between all groups.

Average insertion torque was 46.6 Ncm (SD 11.8).

Also, Anitua et al. applied immediate loading protocol when the insertion torque value was 40 to 65 N cm (the average insertion torque value is 55 ± 3.48 N cm) [29].

The mean bone density, insertion torque and RFA recordings of all 300 implants were 620 ± 251 HU, 36.1 ± 8 Ncm, and 65.7 ± 9 ISQ at implant placement respectively; which indicated statistically significant correlations between bone density and insertion torque values (p < 0.001), bone density and ISQ values (p < 0.001), and insertion torque and ISQ values (p < 0.001).

The mean bone density, insertion torque and RFA values were 645 ± 240 HU, 37.2 ± 7 Ncm, and 67.1 ± 7 ISQ for 280 successful implants at implant placement, while corresponding values were 267 ± 47 HU, 21.8 ± 4 Ncm, and 46.5 ± 4 ISQ for 20 failed implants, and the differences between succesful and failed implants were statistically significant for each parameter (p < 0.001).