ArticleScientific reports2023
Comparative evaluation of 3D-printed and conventional implants in vivo: a quantitative microcomputed tomographic and histomorphometric analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alveolar Ridge Preservation Revisited: A Multimodal Evaluation of Bone Preservation and Regeneration-Preliminary Findings from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Technological innovation in healthcare: challenges, opportunities and impact on sustainability.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Strategies for Craniofacial Tissue Engineering: Innovations for Scalable Bone Regeneration.Plastic and aesthetic research · 2025Article
- Immediate Loading Full-Arch 3D-Printed Implant-Supported Fixed Rehabilitation: A Case Report with 24-Month Follow-Up.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, 3D-printing technology to fabricate dental implants has garnered widespread attention due to its patient-specific customizability and cost-effectiveness. This preclinical animal study analyzed the radiographic and histomorphometric outcomes of 3D-printed implants (3DIs) placed immediately after extraction and compared them to conventional implants (CIs). 3DIs and CIs of the same dimensions placed immediately were analyzed at 2, 6, and 12 weeks. The micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) analysis revealed statistically significant differences at 2 weeks in favor of 3DIs over the CIs in terms of bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV), bone surface/bone volume (BS/BV), trabecular bone pattern factor (Tb.Pf), and structure model index (SMI). At 2 weeks, the mean bone-to-implant contact (BIC) of the 3DIs was greater than that of the CIs; the mean bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO) and the number of Haversian canals of the 3DIs showed no statistically significant differences compared to CIs at 2 weeks. At 6 and 12 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences between the 3DIs and CIs in any parameters. Within limitations, in the early stage of extraction socket healing, the 3DIs demonstrated a higher BIC than the CIs, presenting that 3DIs may be a potential option for immediate placement to enhance osseointegration.
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.