ArticleEuropean oral research2025
Optimizing the primary stability of dental implants in type IV bone: in-vitro comparison of machine-driven and ratcheting insertion protocols.
Article in European oral research, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to assess the effects of various implant insertion techniques on the primary stability of dental implants in both type II and type IV cadaveric bovine. Materials and methods: A total of 48 dental implants (BEGO Semados RSX, BEGO Implant Systems GmbH and Co. KG, Germany) with a diameter of 3.75 mm and a length of 12 mm were used in the experiments. Bovine bone ribs were adjusted to mimic type II and type IV bone characteristics. Following the preparation of recipient sites, implants were inserted using three different protocols: machine-driven insertion (Standard group, Std group), ratchet insertion (Ratcheted, R Group), and a combination of both (Std + R group). The Osstell® Beacon device was used to record the implant stability quotient (ISQ) of each implant immediately after insertion. Two-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni tests were used for statistical evaluation. Results: Bone type significantly influenced the ISQ values (p<0.05). However, when comparing insertion protocols separately for type II and type IV bone, no significant differences were observed. In type IV bone, both the Std group and R group exhibited significantly lower ISQ values compared to the same groups in type II bone (p<0.05 for each). Nevertheless, there were no significant differences in the ISQ values when employing the Std+R technique between the two types of bone. Conclusion: Combining machine-driven and ratchet insertion techniques may prove beneficial in optimizing ISQ values in bovine samples simulating type IV bone.
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.