ArticleNational journal of maxillofacial surgery
Comparison of bone loss around submerged and non-submerged implants during osseointegration phase.
Article in National journal of maxillofacial surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: In Modern dentistry, the implant is the most popular and desirable management of tooth loss. Traditionally two stage (submerged) or one-stage (non-submerged) system has been added by many investigators. In the present study we evaluated the crestal bone loss during osseointegration phase among the three groups (i.e. submerged implants, non-submerged implants with anatomical healing abutment and non- submerged implants with esthetic healing abutment). Material and Methods: 10 subjects with 30 implants, were enrolled in the study. Subjects were randomized in three groups i.e., group 1 submerged (n=10), group 2 non-submerged with anatomical healing abutment ( Results: Crestal bone loss at the end of the 3months (osseointegration phase) was lowest in the submerged group (0.18+-0.06mm) followed by non-submerged esthetic group (0.21+-0.03mm) but it was statistically insignificant. Maximum amount of bone loss was observed in non-submerged anatomical abutment group (0.34+-0.03mm) which was highly significant. Conclusion: It can be concluded that submerged implants technique is a better option in comparison to non-submerged implant technique in terms of radiographical performance during initial phases of 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.