ArticleCureus2024
A Comparison of Different Implant Site Preparation Techniques in Low-Density Bone: An Ex-Vivo Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07424820 (Clinical Comparative Analysis of Magnetic Mallet and Conventional Drilling Techniques for Implant Placement in D4 Bone), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Clinical Comparative Analysis of Magnetic Mallet and Conventional Drilling Techniques for Implant Placement in D4 Bone: A Prospective Study
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- In vitro evaluation of different implant systems and their influence on primary stability.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Effect of Undersized Drilling and Sequential Osseodensification on Primary Implant Stability in Simulated Bone Types III and IV: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Article
- Innovative animal models for surgical interventions and implant biocompatibility: a translational perspective.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOsseointegration is considered a prerequisite for the long-term success of dental implants, and many researchers have considered the stability of the implant when placed in the bone. Many techniques include undersized drilling, densifying burs, magnetic mallets, and expanders. These methods have led to higher initial insertion torque values. The present study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of expanders, densifying burs, and magnetic mallet methods for preparing the implant site in low-density bone and compare them in terms of achieving good initial implant stability. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe present study was conducted in an ex vivo animal model using bovine rib bones. This study was performed on 20 bovine ribs; each rib had four implant site preparations divided into four groups according to the drilling method: a control group of the conventional technique (n=20), the expanders group (n=20), the densification burs group (n=20), and the magnetic mallet group (n=20). The measured values were Primary Insertion Torque and Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ).
resultsThe highest average insertion torque was in the magnetic Mallet group, where the average was 43.75 N/cm
conclusionWithin the limitation of this study, we conclude that all methods used were better than conventional preparation in both ISQ and insertion torque, with the magnetic mallet group outperforming the insertion torque and the Densah burs outperforming the ISQ.
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.