Statistical outcome of random versus selected withdrawal of dental implants

被引:0
|
作者
Herrmann, I
Lekholm, U
Holm, S
机构
[1] MediTeam Dent, Savedalen, Sweden
[2] Univ Gothenburg, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Fac Odontol, Gothenburg, Sweden
[3] Univ Gothenburg, Biostat Branch, Dept Math Stat, Gothenburg, Sweden
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Purpose: When performing clinical trials, missing data from withdrawn patients should be evaluated differently, depending on the reason for the withdrawal of the patients. The question is, if a certain type of patient drops out, will that affect the result? Could a randomly selected sample of a study population be used for analyses instead of evaluating each and every patient? The purpose of this study was to, answer these questions. Materials and Methods: Detailed information on 1,738 implants in 487 patients was pooled together in a new database and used for statistical evaluations. Random or selected withdrawals were pulled from the database. Chi-squared tests were used for significance tests, and lifetables were used for survival analysis. Results: There was a difference in the outcome depending on whether the withdrawals were randomly chosen or selected. Random withdrawals could represent, in this study, as much as 50% of the included patients without changing the statistical results. If selected withdrawals were based on which jaw was treated, the statistical outcome did change, but it did not change if withdrawals were based on gender or age. Conclusion: Evaluation of reasons for withdrawals and withdrawn patient characteristics are of utmost importance when evaluating clinical trials. A randomly selected sample of the entire population could, however, be expected to give the same statistical value as the entire group, if the original material were large enough. Therefore, the use of study samples may more easily enable clinicians to do follow-up investigations.
引用
收藏
页码:25 / 30
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Outcome of dental implants in maxillectomy patients
    Studer, Stephan
    von Jackow, Jeannette
    Zwahlen, Roger
    Studer, Gabriella
    Huber, Gerhard
    Graetz, Klaus
    Bredell, Marius
    ORAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 49 : S8 - S9
  • [2] Effects of selected factors on the osseointegration of dental implants
    Koszuta, Piotr
    Grafka, Agnieszka
    Koszuta, Agnieszka
    Lopucki, Maciej
    Szymanska, Jolanta
    MENOPAUSE REVIEW-PRZEGLAD MENOPAUZALNY, 2015, 14 (03): : 184 - 187
  • [3] In selected sites, short, rough-surfaced dental implants are as successful as long dental implants
    Balevi, Ben
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 2013, 144 (02): : 195 - 196
  • [4] Survey of Currently Selected Dental Implants and Restorations by Prosthodontists
    Cardoso, Richard C.
    Gerngross, Peter J.
    Dominici, John T.
    Kiat-amnuay, Sudarat
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2013, 28 (04) : 1017 - 1025
  • [6] Survival Rates of Dental Implants Versus Teeth
    Rutkowsk, James L.
    JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2022, 48 (04) : 332 - 338
  • [7] STATISTICAL QUESTION Random sampling versus random allocation
    Sedgwick, Philip
    BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2011, 343
  • [8] The Outcome of Smoking on Healing of Bone Around Dental Implants
    Alharethi, Naji A.
    JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND BIOALLIED SCIENCES, 2024, 16 : S751 - S752
  • [9] Feedback on dental implants with dynamic navigation versus freehand
    Nirula, Pragati
    Selvaganesh, Sahana
    Thiyaneswaran, Thiyaneswaran
    BIOINFORMATION, 2023, 19 (03) : 290 - 294
  • [10] Short Narrow Dental Implants versus Long Narrow Dental Implants in Fixed Prostheses: A Prospective Clinical Study
    Antiua, Eduardo
    Escuer, Virginia
    Alkhraisat, Mohammad H.
    DENTISTRY JOURNAL, 2022, 10 (03)