ArticleJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
Comparison of Primary Stability of Implants Installed by Two Different Methods in D3 and D4 Bone Types: An
Article in Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing the primary stability of dental implants in type IV bone: in-vitro comparison of machine-driven and ratcheting insertion protocols.European oral research · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Stress Distribution and Force in External Hexagonal Implant: A 3-D Finite Element Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The Influence of Implant Macro-geometry in Primary Stability in Low-Density Bone: AnJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of the study is to assess the method of implant insertion in D3 and D4 bones and influence of insertion torque for achieving better primary implant stability. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 32 specimens (wood blocks) simulating D4 and D3 bone were grouped into 1, 2, 3, and 4. In groups 1 and 3, the implant and abutment were placed by manual method while in groups 2 and 4 by motor-driven method. The osteotomy site was prepared as per the protocol for soft bone, and implants were placed till the implant platform was in flush with the surface of the block. After achieving a standard insertion torque of 40 N.cm, pullout test was carried out with a universal testing machine and results were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance.
resultsAn intergroup comparison of peak loads revealed an overall statistically significant difference (
conclusionThe D3 bone sample provided greater primary stability of implant than D4 bone samples, and the motor-driven implant seemed to have improved stability than that placed manually.
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.