ArticleCureus2022
Comparative Evaluation of Osseodensification Versus Conventional Osteotomy Technique on Dental Implant Primary Stability: An Ex Vivo Study.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative evaluation of osseodensification drilling versus conventional drilling technique on dental implant stability: A systematic review.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness of an Osseodensification System for Improvement in Bone Density After Delayed Implant Placement: Protocol for a Single-Arm Pilot Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Article
- Thermal and Stability Outcomes of Different Osteotomy Techniques and Implant Macrogeometries in Type IV Bone: An In Vitro Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparing the Effect of Osseodensification Versus Conventional Drilling Technique on Implant Stability and Bone Width in the Alveolar Ridge Split Procedure: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Assessing peri-implant bone microarchitecture: conventional vs. osseodensification drilling - ex vivo analysis.Brazilian dental journal · 2024Article
- Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose One of the commonest treatment options for replacing missing teeth is a root-form implant. Clinically, the key mechanical factor in achieving success is primary stability. This ex vivo study aims to evaluate whether osseodensification method will achieve good primary stability or the conventional drilling protocol. Methods Fresh iliac bone of the sheep was selected similar to D3 and D4 bone densities. A total of 22 osteotomy sites were prepared in the bone sample, of which 11 were prepared by osseodensification method (test group) and other 11 by conventional undersized drilling (control group). Primary stability was measured using insertion torque (IT), resonance frequency analysis (RFA), and reverse torque values (RTVs) by measuring implant stability quotient (ISQ). The recorded data were statistically analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 22.0. The differences between groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and independent t-test. The Pearson correlation coefficient test was performed to measure the linear relationship between two variables. The statistical significance level was established at p<0.05. Results When the correlation among IT, RTV, and ISQ was measured, a statistically significant correlation between IT and RTV (p=0.001) and between IT and ISQ (p=0.0001) was observed. A statistically significant (p=0.014) correlation between RTV and ISQ was also found. Conclusion Osteotomy prepared by osseodensification method showed higher IT, RTV, and ISQ values than the conventional undersized group.
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.