ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Preclinical Performance of a Novel Dental Implant Design Reducing Mechanical Stress in Cortical Bone.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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.
- Influence of Immediate Versus Delayed Loading on Peri-Implant Bone Healing: A Comparative FEA Study of Titanium Threaded and Scaffold Dental Implants.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This animal study compared the healing performance of a novel implant design characterized by a shift in thread geometry and core diameter with two different surfaces with that of an apically tapered implant. Test Bioactive (n = 9), Test Porous (n = 7) and Control (n = 8) implants were placed in the mandibles of minipigs. Following healing, bone samples were harvested for determining bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and marginal bone loss (MBL). Comparative statistics were based on Levene's test, Shapiro-Wilk tests, the Kruskal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon tests with Holm correction (α = 0.05). The mean undersizing of the osteotomy was 0.15 mm for Control, while in the test groups 0.33 mm and 0.34 mm were calculated. Insertion torques ranged from 61.5 Ncm (Control) to 76.1 Ncm (Test Bioactive). Maximum BIC was seen in Test Porous with 55.83%, while Test Bioactive showed only 48.11%. MBL was 4.1 mm in Test Bioactive, while Test Porous and Control exhibited 2.8 mm. No significant differences between the implant groups were observed (
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.