Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32290361›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants.

Luca Comuzzi, Margherita Tumedei, Ana Emilia Pontes, Adriano Piattelli, Giovanna Iezzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Influence of Implant Macro-geometry in Primary Stability in Low-Density Bone: AnJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Luca ComuzziPrivate Practice, San Vendemiano-Conegliano, 31020 Treviso, Italy.
Margherita TumedeiDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University "G. D'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8770-5297
Ana Emilia PontesDepartment of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora-Campus Governador Valadares, São Paulo 01000, Brazil.
Adriano PiattelliDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University "G. D'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy.
Giovanna IezziDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University "G. D'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of the present study was to compare, in low-density polyurethane blocks, the primary implant stability values (micromobility) and removal torque values of three different implant geometries in two different bone densities representing the structure of the human posterior jaws.

methodsA total of 60 implants were used in the present investigation: twenty implants for each of three groups (group A, group B, and group C), in both polyurethane 10 pcf and 20 pcf densities. The insertion torque, pull-out torque, and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were obtained.

resultsNo differences were found in the values of Group A and Group B implants. In both these groups, the insertion torques were quite low in the 10 pcf blocks. Better results were found in the 20 pcf blocks, which showed very good stability of the implants. The pull-out values were slightly lower than the insertion torque values. High ISQ values were found in Group A and B implants. Lower values were present in Group C implants.

conclusionsThe present investigation evaluated implants with different geometries that are available on the market, and not experimental implants specifically created for the study. The authors aimed to simulate real clinical conditions (poor-density bone or immediate post-extraction implants) in which knowledge of dental implant features, which may be useful in increasing the primary stability, may help the oral surgeon during the surgery planning.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsPolyurethanesBone DensityHumansTorqueDental Implantspolyurethane foamPolyurethanesbone densityconical implantscylindrical implantsimplant stability quotientinsertion and pull-out torquepolyurethane foam blocksprimary stability

Identifiers

PMID32290361
PMCPMC7216137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.