ArticleJournal of dental sciences2025
Comparison of implant stability and marginal bone loss between osseodensification and conventional osteotomy at adjacent implant sites.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers 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
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Osseodensification (OD) has been proposed to enhance implant stability, but the extent of stability and marginal bone changes is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare implant stability and marginal bone changes between osseodensification and conventional drilling (CD) osteotomy at adjacent implant sites. Materials and methods: Forty partially edentulous patients requiring two adjacent implants (n = 80) were enrolled in this study. Each subject underwent one OD osteotomy and one CD osteotomy at adjacent implant sites in the posterior maxilla or posterior mandible. Insertion torque (IT) was recorded with a torque gauge during surgery. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured using a resonance frequency analyzer immediately and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postoperatively, while marginal bone loss (MBL) was calculated from standardized periapical radiographs. Results: OD showed significantly higher IT and primary ISQ than CD ( Conclusion: Implant stability was significantly higher in OD than in CD, implying the possibility of non-submerged healing or immediate/early provisionalization/loading protocols. MBL was lower in OD than in CD at 3, 6, and 9 months postoperatively but was similar at 12 months postoperatively.
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.