ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2017
Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation of Yttria-Niobia-Stabilized Zirconia Sandblasted Surface at Bone-Implant Interface with 3-Dimensional Visualization via Advanced Hard Tissue Clearing.Biomaterials research · 2026Article
- Analysis of Bone Density and Bone Morphometry by Periapical Radiographs in Dental Implant Osseointegration Process.International journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Potential risk factors for early and late dental implant failure: a retrospective clinical study on 9080 implants.International journal of implant dentistry · 2020Article
- Erratum to: Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison.International journal of implant dentistry · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMini dental implants (MDIs) are becoming increasingly popular for rehabilitation of edentulous patients because of their several advantages. However, there is a lack of evidence on the osseointegration potential of the MDIs. The objective of the study was to histomorphometrically evaluate and compare bone apposition on the surface of MDIs and standard implants in a rabbit model.
methodsNine New Zealand white rabbits were used for the study to meet statistical criteria for adequate power. Total 18 3M
resultsAll implants were osseointegrated. Histologic measures show mineralized bone matrix in intimate contact with the implant surface in both groups. The median BIC was 57.5% (IQR 9.0) in the MDI group and 55.0% (IQR 4.5) in the control group (P > 0.05, Mann-Whitney test). There were no statistical differences in osseointegration at 6 weeks between MDIs and standard implants in rabbit tibias.
conclusionsBased on these results, it is concluded that osseointegration of MDIs is similar to that of standard implants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.