ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Effect of Implant Instrumentation Techniques in the Success of Implants: An Original Research.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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.
- Implant stability in the posterior maxilla: clinical and radiographic comparison of osseodensification and conventional drilling: a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The success rates of dental implants are largely dependent on implant instrumentation procedures. It's still unknown, nevertheless, how successful sophisticated instrumentation techniques are in comparison to older methods. Methods: One hundred patients receiving dental implants participated in a prospective study that was carried out in a tertiary care facility. Random assignments were made to place patients in Group B (advanced instrumentation) or Group A (conventional instrumentation). Following implant implantation, clinical indicators, such as implant stability and peri-implant bone loss, were evaluated on a regular basis. A statistical analysis was conducted in order to compare the results among the groups. Results: Compared to implants placed using conventional procedures (75.2 ± 3.4), implants placed using advanced instrumentation techniques showed considerably improved stability (82.6 ± 2.9) ( Conclusion: In summary, current research indicates that, in comparison to conventional methods, sophisticated instrumentation techniques enhance implant stability and decrease peri-implant bone loss. These findings have significant ramifications for implant dentistry clinical procedures as well as patient outcomes.
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.