ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2021
Radiographic comparisons of crestal bone levels around implants placed with low-speed drilling and standard drilling protocols: Preliminary results.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present study aimed to investigate the mean crestal bone loss (CBL) by placing implants using two different drilling-protocols, i.e., standard drilling with saline irrigation and low-speed drilling without saline irrigation. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe patients were enrolled in the present study from a university teaching institute. Patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were randomly placed in two study groups: 1) control group: Standard drilling with saline irrigation and 2) test group: low-speed drilling without saline irrigation. The radiographic mean crestal bone loss (CBL) was evaluated at 3 months of follow-up before implant loading. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 20.0 (IBM product, Chicago, USA) and a p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsSixteen patients (10 males and 6 females) participated in the study. Thirty Camlog®-screw-line implants were placed (15 implants per study group). After 3 months of follow-up, the means CBL of implants placed with standard drilling and low-speed drilling protocols were 1.01 ± 0.49 mm and 0.74 ± 0.62 mm, respectively. No statistically significant difference could be recorded between two groups (p = 0.206).
conclusionsDental implants placed with low-speed drilling without saline irrigation exhibited a similar CBL to implants installed with the standard drilling protocol. However, further randomised clinical trials are recommended to obtain stronger evidence and a better understanding of the effect of the low-speed drilling protocol without saline irrigation on mean CBL and long-term implant survival.
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.