Trial reportBioMed research international2018
Does Oral Implant Design Affect Marginal Bone Loss? Results of a Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial.
Trial report in BioMed research international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Effect of microthread design on the preservation of marginal bone around immediately placed implants: a 5-years prospective cohort study.BMC oral health · 2021Trial
- Evaluation of the effects of geometric design and surface properties of dental implants on marginal bone loss and bone quality by fractal analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Influence of marginal bone resorption on two mini implant-retained mandibular overdenture: AnThe journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2021Article
- Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo test whether or not the modified design of the test implant (intended to increase primary stability) has an equivalent effect on MBL compared to the control.
methodsForty patients were randomly assigned to receive test or control implants to be installed in identically dimensioned bony beds. Implants were radiographically monitored at installation, at prosthetic delivery, and after one year. Treatments were considered equivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference (MD) in MBL was in between -0.25 and 0.25 mm. Additionally, several soft tissue parameters and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were evaluated. Linear mixed models were fitted for each patient to assess time effects on response variables.
resultsThirty-three patients (21 males, 12 females; 58.2 ± 15.2 years old) with 81 implants (47 test, 34 control) were available for analysis after a mean observation period of 13.9 ± 4.5 months (3 dropouts, 3 missed appointments, and 1 missing file). The adjusted MD in MBL after one year was -0.13 mm (90% CI: -0.46-0.19; test group: -0.49; control group: -0.36;
conclusionBoth implant systems can be considered successful after one year of observation. Concerning MBL in the presented setup, equivalence of the treatments cannot be concluded. REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00007877).
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.