ArticleCureus2024
Conventional Versus Osseodensification Drilling in the Narrow Alveolar Ridge: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Primary and secondary stability in implants placed in low-density bone using conventional vs. osseodensification technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Lateral Wall Failure During Implant Osteotomy Preparation in a Standardized Narrow-Ridge Model: Osseodensification Versus Conventional Drilling-An Ex Vivo Controlled Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Case Report: Advanced prosthodontic rehabilitation using implant-assisted partial denture guided by the neutral zone concept after fibular reconstruction.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Osseodensification Versus Subtractive Drilling in Cortical Bone: An Evaluation of Implant Surface Characteristics and Their Effects on Osseointegration.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Bone Remodeling and Marginal Bone Loss of Simplified Versus Conventional Drilling: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Osseodensification over standard drilling methods on implant stability and crestal bone level.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- CBCT in Dental Implantology: A Key Tool for Preventing Peri-Implantitis and Enhancing Patient Outcomes.Dentistry journal · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Conventionally, undersized osteotomies were used to increase initial bone-to-implant contact to achieve primary stability in implantology. This is particularly evident in regions with low bone density. The potential for severe bone compression and ischemia poses a challenge to secondary stability. Instead, lateral bone compaction is caused by the idea of osseodensification. Research on the potential benefits of this method for narrow ridges is lacking. This study aimed to determine if the osseodensification drilling technique affects primary stability and how much the alveolar ridge expands following implant site preparation. Methodology A total of 30 participants aged 20 to 80 years were included in this randomized controlled clinical investigation. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the following two groups: one that received standard drill preparation, and another that received osseodensification drill preparation. Implant stability using implant stability quotient values, crest width, apical width (5 mm from crest), and bone density were assessed both before and after six months using cone-beam computed tomography. Results Osseodensification impacted the width at the apex (5 mm from the crest) and radiographic bone density, adding to the quality, but did not affect implant stability and crestal width after osseointegration. The mean difference in conventional and osseodensification groups was 0.46 and 0.68 mm, respectively, concerning the crestal width. Moreover, the mean difference was 0.74 and 0.58 mm for conventional and osseodensification groups, respectively, concerning the width at the apex (5 mm from the crest). Conclusions This study demonstrates that the osseodensification process increased both the radiographic bone density and the width at the apex, demonstrating that osseodensification drilling techniques allow for the placement of implants with larger diameters in narrow alveolar ridges.
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.