ArticleHeliyon2024
The relationship between the secondary implant stability quotient and oxidized implant-related factors: A retrospective study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The present retrospective study aimed to determine the relationship between the secondary implant stability quotient and different parameters related to an oxidized implant. Methods: A total of 135 patients (305 oxidized implants) were included. Implant-related factors (length, diameter, surgical and loading protocols, grafting, insertion torque, and primary stability) were used for comparisons and linear regression analyses, using secondary ISQ as the dependent variable. Results: At the patient level, the mean time from implantation to secondary ISQ registration was 20.3 ± 29 weeks, and the mean secondary ISQ was 77.30 ± 7.22. The ISQ did not reveal significant differences regarding implant lengths, loading protocol, and simultaneous grafting. In contrast, platform diameters (3.5, 4.3, and 5.0), surgical protocols (one stage versus two stages), insertion torque (<35 Ncm versus >35 Ncm), and primary stability (achieved versus not achieved) all revealed significant secondary ISQ differences. Nevertheless, the regression analysis demonstrated that the platform diameter was the only variable significantly and positively predicted the secondary ISQ. Similar findings were found with the implant level analysis. Conclusions: Among different implant- and protocol-related parameters, the platform diameter of the oxidized implant appears to be the only significant predictor of high secondary ISQ values at the time of superstructure connection.
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.