SynthesisJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society2024
Comparative evaluation of osseodensification drilling versus conventional drilling technique on dental implant stability: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Osseodensification over standard drilling methods on implant stability and crestal bone level.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe present systematic review compares the stability, crestal bone levels and efficacy of osseodensification (OD) drilling techniques for dental implant placement to traditional drilling methods. SETTINGS AND
designThe Cochrane online library, PubMed, Scopus, and other well-known online resources are used in the research. Using a systematic review design, the current study examines published qualitative studies with an emphasis on analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing precise keywords, a thorough search of pertinent databases was carried out in accordance with PRISMA standards. Studies testing dental implant stability, crestal bone levels and clinical results using both OD and traditional procedures were covered by the inclusion criteria. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The risk of bias and quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials.
resultsA total of 170 patients and 334 implants from Egypt, India, and Brazil were included in eight papers that made up the systematic review. In several clinical situations, osseodensification outperformed standard drilling in terms of implant durability, bone development, and torque data. Statistical analysis presented the lowest risks, while blinded outcome assessment, allocation concealment, random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data and experimental technique revealed higher risks. Bias assessment found various risks across different components.
conclusionThe thorough examination of eight papers demonstrates that osseodensification is a technique with great promise in the field of dental implants. It exhibits superior torque values, bone development, and stability when compared to traditional drilling. The overall results highlight the potential of osseodensification to improve clinical outcomes and advance the science of dental implantology, even in the face of variances in bias concerns.
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.