Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36977760›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023

Influence of different surgical techniques on primary implant stability in the posterior maxilla: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Maria-Victoria Olmedo-Gaya, María-Nuria Romero-Olid, Francisco M Ocaña-Peinado, Marta Vallecillo-Rivas, Cristina Vallecillo, Candela Reyes-Botella

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. The Influence of Implant Macro-geometry in Primary Stability in Low-Density Bone: AnJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maria-Victoria Olmedo-GayaDepartment of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
María-Nuria Romero-OlidDepartment of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Francisco M Ocaña-PeinadoDepartment of Statistics and Operations Research, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Marta Vallecillo-RivasDepartment of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Cristina VallecilloDepartment of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. ext.cvallecillo@ugr.es.
Candela Reyes-BotellaDepartment of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Universidad de Granada · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivePrimary stability (PS) is remarkable for secondary stability and implant success. Surgical technique modifications seem to improve primary stability, especially in poor quality bone. The aim of this study was to compare the insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotients (ISQ) of implants placed with underpreparation, expanders, and standard surgical instrumentation in different bone types. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis randomized controlled clinical trial enrolled 108 patients (n=108 implants) distributed in three study groups: group 1 (n=36) underpreparation technique, group 2 (n=36) expander technique, and group 3 (n=36) conventional drilling. IT was recorded with a torque indicator. ISQ was recorded with resonance frequency analysis immediately after surgery.

resultsISQ values were associated with the patient's bone quality and were higher in bone quality type II (76.65) and type III (73.60) and lower in bone quality type IV (67.34), with statistically significant differences (p<0.0001). Lower stability results were obtained when conventional drilling (69.31) was used compared to the use of underpreparation (74.29) or expanders (73.99) with a level of significance of p=0.008 and p=0.005, respectively.

conclusionsThe surgical technique influences the PS when there is low-quality bone. In low-quality bones, conventional drilling obtains lower ISQ values. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Replace the conventional drilling technique for an alternative, underpreparation or expanders, in low-quality bone in order to achieve greater primary stability.

Indexed as

Dental Implantation, EndosseousDental ImplantsHumansMaxillaOsteotomyResonance Frequency AnalysisTorqueDental ImplantsBone qualityConventional drillingDental implantsExpandersImplant stabilityUnderpreparation

Identifiers

PMID36977760
PMCPMC10329581
OpenAlexW4361213314

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.