ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2020
Bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: Retrospective 2-years case-control study.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Externally connected simple taper retention implants in narrow anterior alveolar ridges: 5-7-year follow-up cohort study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the clinical safety and performance of a narrow diameter (2.9 mm) bone-level implant: a 1-year prospective single-arm multicenter study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2023Article
- Influence of Restorative Material on the Distribution of Loads to the Bone in Hybrid Abutment Crowns-In Vitro Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
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
backgroundThe objectives were to evaluate the bone loss (BL) around narrow diameter implants (3.3 mm) 2 years after implant loading and compare with the bone loss around conventional-diameter implants (4.1 mm), as well as with clinical and anatomical variables. 2-years follow-up. MATERIAL AND
methodsCases: 20 patients either gender-age, narrow implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 3.3 mm); Control: 20 patients matching for gender-age, conventional implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 4.1). Total 82 implants (31 narrow implants and 51 conventional implants) in 40 patients. To avoid statistical bias, a cluster of one implant per patient was randomly selected (20 narrow implants and 20 conventional implants). To evaluate changes resulting from bone loss around the implants, a total of 80 panoramic radiographs were taken of all 40 patients; the first panoramic image was taken at the time of implant loading and the second one 2 years later. Clinical and demographic variables were obtained from the patients' medical records. Statistical method: Spearman's correlation coefficient, chi-squared (Haberman's post hoc), Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Statistical significance
resultsNo significant differences in bone loss around were found around narrow implants versus conventional implants. Differences linked to tobacco use were found after studying one implant per patient (
conclusionsWith the limitations of the present study, no significant differences in BL were found when comparing narrow implants with conventional implants after 2 years of implant loading. There were also no differences found when accounting for other demographic and clinical variables, with the exception of tobacco use.
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.