ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparison of Osseointegration of Dental Implants Placed in Rabbit Tibia Using Two Dental Laser and Implant Handpiece Systems.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Two Dental Implant Micromotor Systems for Dental Implant Placement on Implant Stability and Removal Torque: An Animal Experiment.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Thread design optimization of a dental implant using explicit dynamics finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Dental Restorations.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The present study aimed to confirm the usefulness of a multi-laser handpiece system currently under development. Implants were placed in the tibia of rabbits using a conventional separate laser-implant handpiece system (control group; SurgicPro+; NSK, Kanuma, Japan and Epic 10; Biolase, Irvine, CA, USA) and a multi-laser handpiece system (experimental group; BLP 10; Saeshin, Daegu, Korea). Implants were placed in left and right tibias of five rabbits using a conventional laser-implant handpiece system and a multi-laser handpiece system (N = 5 per group). Subsequently, micro-computed tomography (micro-CT; bone-to-implant contact evaluation), implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurement, and histological evaluations were performed to confirm the implant placement results. The independent t-test and the paired t-test were used to compare the ISQ values and the results of the two implant-laser handpiece groups (α = 0.05), respectively. No statistically significant difference in micro-CT, ISQ, and histological evaluations was observed between implant placement by the two systems (p > 0.05) except implant initial stability. The use of the multi-laser handpiece system is expected to produce the same results as a conventional separate laser-implant handpiece system with the higher implant initial stability. Additionally, it will potentially make the clinical environment more pleasant and will provide convenience for the clinicians.
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.