Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36676792›Full record

Trial reportMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2023

Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Insertion Torque and Implant Stability of Two Different Implant Macrogeometries in the Initial Periods of Osseointegration.

Sergio Alexandre Gehrke, Guillermo Castro Cortellari, Gustavo Vicentis de Oliveira Fernandes, Antonio Scarano, Rafael Garcia Martins, Renata Moreira Cançado, Alfredo Mikail Melo Mesquita

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Sergio Alexandre GehrkeDepartment of Research, Bioface/PgO/UCAM, Calle Cuareim 1483, Montevideo 11100, Uruguay.ORCID 0000-0002-5863-9101
Guillermo Castro CortellariDepartment of Research, Bioface/PgO/UCAM, Calle Cuareim 1483, Montevideo 11100, Uruguay.
Gustavo Vicentis de Oliveira FernandesPeriodontics and Oral Medicine Department, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3022-4390
Antonio ScaranoDepartment of Research, Bioface/PgO/UCAM, Calle Cuareim 1483, Montevideo 11100, Uruguay.ORCID 0000-0003-1374-6146
Rafael Garcia MartinsDepartment of Implantology, Paulista University (UNIP), São Paulo 04026-002, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8120-1896
Renata Moreira CançadoDepartment of Implantology, Paulista University (UNIP), São Paulo 04026-002, Brazil.
Alfredo Mikail Melo MesquitaDepartment of Implantology, Paulista University (UNIP), São Paulo 04026-002, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4273-1448

Funding

Ministerio de Fomento 2021/PER/00020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The present study compared two implants with different macrogeometries placed in healed alveolar sites, evaluating the insertion torque (ITV) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values at three different periods. Methods: Seventy patients with a total of 100 dental implants were allocated into two groups (n = 50 per group): DuoCone implants (DC group) that included 28 implants in the maxilla and 22 in the mandible, and Maestro implants (MAE group) that included 26 in the maxilla and 24 in the mandible. The ITV was measured during the implant placement, and the ISQ values were measured immediately at implant placement (baseline) and after 30 and 45 days. Results: The mean and standard deviations of the ITV were statistically significant (p < 0.0001), 56.4 ± 6.41 Ncm for the DC group and 29.3 ± 9.65 Ncm for the MAE group. In the DC group, the ISQs ranged between 61.1 ± 3.78 and 69.8 ± 3.86, while the MAE group presented similar values compared with the other group, ranging between 61.9 ± 3.92 and 72.1 ± 2.37. Conclusions: The value of implant insertion torque did not influence the ISQ values measured immediately after implant placement. However, the ITV influenced the ISQ values measured in the two initial periods of osseointegration, with implants installed with lower torques presenting higher ISQ values.

Indexed as

MaxillaOsseointegrationData CollectionHumansMandibleTorqueclinical studyimplant macrogeometryimplant stabilityinsertion torqueresonance frequency analysis

Identifiers

PMID36676792
PMCPMC9862599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.