ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2024
Clinical evaluation of 3.0-mm narrow-diameter implants: a retrospective study with up to 5 years of observation.
Article in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2024. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of vertical implant position on marginal bone loss: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Supportive Periodontal Therapy Improves Implant Survival in Patients With a History of Periodontitis: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study of 3555 Implants.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- Long-term clinical study of fixed prosthetic rehabilitation using one-piece narrow-diameter implants: a retrospective study.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a single type of narrow-diameter implant (NDI) by investigating its survival rate and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL). In addition, variables possibly related to implant survival and MBL were investigated to identify potential risk factors.
methodsThe study was conducted as a retrospective study involving 49 patients who had received 3.0-mm diameter TSIII implants (Osstem Implant Co.) at Seoul National University Dental Hospital. In total, 64 implants were included, and dental records and radiographic data were collected from 2017 to 2022. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a Cox proportional hazard model were used to estimate the implant survival rate and to investigate the effects of age, sex, jaw, implant location, implant length, the stage of surgery, guided bone regeneration, type of implant placement, and the surgeon's proficiency (resident or professor) on implant survival. The MBL of the NDIs was measured, and the factors influencing MBL were evaluated.
resultsThe mean observation period was 30.5 months (interquartile range, 26.75-45 months), and 6 out of 64 implants failed. The survival rate of the NDIs was 90.6%, and the multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age was associated with implant failure (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.31,
conclusionsNDIs can be considered a primary alternative when standard-diameter implants are unsuitable. However, further studies are required to confirm their long-term stability.
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.