Trial reportBMC oral health2021
The early loading of different surface-modified implants: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and Radiographic Performance of Two Distinct Sandblasted, Large-Grit, Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Trial
- Analysis of osseointegration of implants with macrogeometries with healing chambers: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Challenges and strategies in dental care for patients with intellectual disabilities in Hungary.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- Long-Term Clinical Study on Sandblasted-Acid-Etched Surface Dental Implants: 12-Year Follow-Up.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Correlation between Implant Surface Roughness and Implant Stability: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
- Outcomes of treatment with short dental implants compared with standard-length implants: a retrospective clinical study.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2024Article
- Are Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Three-Dimensional Histological Reconstructions Reliable for the Assessment of Trabecular Microarchitecture?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Surgical Treatment of Multiple Bone Cysts Using a Platelet-Rich Fibrin and BoneAlbumin Composite Graft: A Case Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2024Article
- Impact of Implant Surface and Smoking on Peri-Implant Human Bone: What we Learned from The Last 20 Years?Brazilian dental journal · 2024Review
- Possible Applications for a Biodegradable Magnesium Membrane in Alveolar Ridge Augmentation-Retrospective Case Report with Two Years of Follow-Up.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Surface Coatings of Dental Implants: A Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Review
- Novel In Situ-Cross-Linked Electrospun Gelatin/Hydroxyapatite Nonwoven Scaffolds Prove Suitable for Periodontal Tissue Engineering.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of a Novel Triangular Implant Neck Design: A Case Series.Dentistry journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious surface treatment options have been adopted with the aim to improve osseointegration, reducing the overall treatment time. Implant stability of early loaded implants with different modified surfaces was compared in the present study.
methodsPatients were selected from the Department of Oro-Maxillofacial Surgery and Stomatology at Semmelweis University. Patients randomly received SA (alumina sandblasted and acid-etched), NH (bioabsorbable apatite nanocoating) or SLA (large-grit sandblasted and acid-etched) surface implants. Outcome measures were: implant success, implant stability, and periodontal parameters. The implant stability was measured at the time of implant placement (primary stability) and six weeks after (prothesis delivery, secondary stability). Osstell and Periotest were applied to take all the measurements. The primary and secondary stability were compared in the three study groups Finally the periimplant probing depth appearing after three months of loading was checked on 6 points around to the implant-supported prostheses. Shapiro-Wilk and Mann-Whitney tests were used for the comparison between the study groups.
resultsA total of 75 implants with different length and diameter were inserted into various positions. One implant failed spontaneously at the fourth week after implant placement. The survival rate was 98,7%. Comparing the primary and secondary stability values, the data were significantly improved in every groups. The difference was the highest in the NH group, however, this difference was not significant compared to the two other groups. Good periodontal parameters were experienced in all the tested implants, independently by the groups.
conclusionsWith the limitation of the present study, all the implants showed improved stability six weeks after implant placement. A trend of higher result was found for the NH group. Further studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm this preliminary results.
trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN13181677; the date of registration: 04/03/2021. Retrospectively registered.
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.