ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2019
Crestal Bone Changes in Different Implants Designs: A Prospective Clinical Trial.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative evaluation of interdental papilla fills around bone level and tissue level implants: A randomised controlled trial.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Surface modification strategies to reinforce the soft tissue seal at transmucosal region of dental implants.Bioactive materials · 2024Review
- Micro Computed Tomography and Immunohistochemistry Analysis of Dental Implant Osseointegration in Animal Experimental Model: A Scoping Review.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Bone-Implant Interface Stress and Strain Using Heterogeneous Mandibular Bone Properties Based on Different Empirical Correlations.European journal of dentistry · 2021Article
- Clinical feasibility and benefits of a tapered, sand-blasted, and acid-etched surfaced tissue-level dental implant.International journal of implant dentistry · 2020Article
- Comparison of bone loss around submerged and non-submerged implants during osseointegration phase.National journal of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSeveral modifications, such as changes in the implant-abutment connection, have been suggested in studies on dental implants to better preserve the peri-implant bone level. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare crestal bone level changes between two different implant designs-tissue level (TL) and bone level (BL). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe sample comprised 18 patients, on whom a total of 30 hydrophilic tissue- and bone level implants were placed (SLActive, Straumann Institut AG, Basel, Switzerland), in the posterior region of the maxilla or the mandible. Impressions were taken after 45 days of healing. Then, cemented-retained metalloceramic crowns were fabricated and installed. Marginal bone level changes were assessed by the paralleling technique of periapical radiographies, on both mesial and distal aspects of each implant, at the moment of the implant placement and after 1 year of loading. Photoshop software was used to perform linear measurements by a single and calibrated examiner. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The Mann-Whitney test at a 5% significance level was used to compare the bone changes among the implants assessed.
resultsA significantly lower (
conclusionsTissue level implants presented greater bone loss in the mesial surface than bone level implants. Both designs presented stable and clinically acceptable bone crests.
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.