Trial reportBMC oral health2024
Analysis of osseointegration of implants with macrogeometries with healing chambers: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo verify the influence of macrogeometry with healing chambers on the osseointegration of dental implants by analyzing implant stability quotient (ISQ) and evaluate the correlation between insertion torque and ISQ insertion with different macrogeometries.
methodsIn total, 26 implants were installed in the posterior mandible of eight patients with sufficient bone height for the installation of implants measuring 3.5 mm in diameter and 9.0 mm in length. The implants were categorized according to two types of macrogeometry: a test group (GT) with 13 conical implants with healing chambers and a control group (GC) with 13 conical implants with conventional threads. To insert the implants, a bone drilling protocol was used up to a diameter of 3 mm with the last helical bur. The insertion torque of the implants was evaluated, followed by the measurement of ISQ at 0 (T-0), 7 (T-7), 14 (T-14), 21 (T-21), 28 (T-28), and 42 (T-42) days.
resultsThe mean insertion torque was 43 Ncm in both groups, without a significant difference. Moreover, no significant difference in the ISQ values was found between the groups at different time points (p > 0.05), except at T-7 (GT = 69.87±1.89 and GC = 66.48±4.49; p = 0.01). Although there was no significant difference, ISQ median values were higher in the GT group than GC group at 28 days (GT = 67.98 and GC = 63.46; p = 0.05) and 42 days (GT = 66.12 and GC = 60.33; p = 0.09). No correlation was found between the insertion torque and ISQ insertion (p > 0.05).
conclusionFurthermore, implants with a 3.5 mm diameter macrogeometry, with or without healing chambers, inserted with a drilling protocol up to 3 mm in diameter of the last helical bur, led to a similar secondary stability, with no difference in ISQ values. Although, implants with healing chamber demonstrates ascending values in the graph of ISQ, having a trend of faster osseointegration than implants without healing chambers. Both macrogeometries provide a similar primary stability to implants.
trial registrationThis study was registered retrospectively in ReBec (brazilian registry of clinical trials) under the number RBR-96n5×69, on the date of 19/06/2023.
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.