ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2025
Article in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2025. 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.
- Effects of Two Dental Implant Micromotor Systems for Dental Implant Placement on Implant Stability and Removal Torque: An Animal Experiment.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
purposeA small magnetic peg, named "BracketPeg," has been developed as an attachment magnet for implant prostheses. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of measuring implant stability at the prosthesis level, evaluate the reliability and accuracy of BracketPeg, and examine the consistency of measurements obtained using other devices for damping capacity assessment (DCA) and resonance frequency analysis (RFA).
methodsForty implants were installed into artificial bone blocks, with each block representing 1 of 4 different diameters (3.5, 4.0, 4.5, and 5.5 mm; 10 implants per diameter). Each implant was paired with a customized zirconia prosthesis that matched the implant diameter. Implant stability was measured at both the fixture and prosthesis levels using Anycheck™ (Neobiotech) for DCA and Osstell™ Beacon (W&H) and ChecQ™ (Dentis) for RFA. To obtain prosthesis-level measurements using RFA devices, BracketPeg was attached to the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the prosthesis to evaluate implant stability.
resultsThe implant stability quotient (ISQ) was significantly lower at the prosthesis level than at the fixture level (
conclusionsBracketPeg provides reliable and consistent implant stability measurements at the prosthesis level compared to other devices, making it a practical and feasible tool for the clinical evaluation of implants.
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.