Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34447139›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2021

Influence of Inter-Radicular Septal Bone Quantity in Primary Stability of Immediate Molar Implants with Different Length and Diameter Placed in Mandibular Region. A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Simulated Implant Study.

Arshad Jamal Sayed, Safia Shoeb Shaikh, Shoeb Yakub Shaikh, Mohammed Abid Hussain, Sabahat Ullah Khan Tareen, Vaibhav Awinashe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Arshad Jamal SayedDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry in Alrass, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia.
Safia Shoeb ShaikhDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia.
Shoeb Yakub ShaikhDepartment of Conservative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed Abid HussainConsulting Prosthodontist, Karnataka, India.
Sabahat Ullah Khan TareenDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry in Alrass, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia.
Vaibhav AwinasheDepartment of Prosthodontics. College of Dentistry in Alrass, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe purpose of this MATERIALS AND

methodsThe study was carried out on 40 cone-beam computed tomography scans selected with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. According to the diameter and length of implants, they were divided into nine groups (G1 to G9). The virtual implants of different diameters and length were placed in mandibular first molar and measurements were done for peri-implant horizontal and vertical gap defect, peri-implant interradicular bone support and apical bone support for all the groups.

resultsThe study groups Diameter, (D-7 mm) showed least horizontal gap defect (Buccal-1.30 ± 0.56 mm, lingual-1.30 ± 0.56 mm, mesial-1.20 ± 0.51 mm, and distal-1.05 ± 0.59 mm) as compared to regular implant diameter (D-4.7) groups (Buccal-2.35 ± 0.483 mm, lingual-2.10 mm ± 0.44 mm, mesial-2.30 ± 0.64 mm, and distal-2.25 ± 0.43 mm). The unsupported Vertical implant gap defect at the coronal part of the socket was 2.80 mm ± 0.83 mm for all groups in both horizontal and vertical direction. The vertical peri-implant interradicular bone support showed increased bone support with increase in implant length (L). The buccal and lingual inter-radicular bone-support was least for Length (L-8.5 mm), moderate for L-11.5 mm, and highest for L-13.5 mm groups, respectively. The mesial inter-radicular bone support was least for G4G7, moderate for G1G2G5G8, and maximum for G3G6G9 groups. Similarly, the distal inter-radicular bone support was least for G4G7, moderate for G1G5G8, and maximum for G2G3G6G9 groups, respectively. There was no apical bone support in L-8.5 mm group as the tip of implant was 3.5-4 mm within the socket tip. Whereas, L-11.5 mm had decent (0.9-1 mm) and L-13.5 mm had Good (1.35-1.95 mm) apical bone support as the implant tip was beyond the socket tip.

conclusionAll the groups showed good interradicular bone support on buccal and lingual surfaces. Regular width implants with longer length showed satisfactory interradicular bone support on mesial and distal surfaces. Longer implants showed good apical bone support in all the four surfaces and hence good apical primary stability expected.

Indexed as

Bone supportgap defectsimmediate molar implantsimplant length and diameterinter-radicular boneprimary stability

Identifiers

PMID34447139
PMCPMC8375907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.