ArticleNational journal of maxillofacial surgery
Bone mineral density as a criterion for primary implant stability: A retrospective CBCT analysis.
Article in National journal of maxillofacial surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Evaluation of early trabecular changes around implants using fractal analysis and panoramic indices.PloS one · 2026Article
- Assessing Alveolar Bone Volume Fraction in Dental Implantology Using 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: AnIEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the local bone density derived from a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan from different sites in the maxilla and mandible and the insertion torque values, for the success of oral implants. Materials and Methods: A total of 73 patients who reported to our unit, with missing teeth and a desire for replacement with dental implants, were included in this study. A total of 118 implants were placed from 2008 to 2011. The number of male and female patients included in the study was 43 and 30, respectively. The mean age of the patients was 43.2 years. NobelReplace Select Tapered Implant system was used for all patients. Results: The mean bone density of all 118 implants was 620 ± 251 Hounsfield units (HU). The mean bone density and insertion torque values of the six failed implants were 459 ± 131 HU and 28 ± 5 Ncm, respectively. The mean bone density and insertion torque values of the 112 successful implants were 678 ± 217 HU and 36 ± 2 Ncm, respectively. A significant strong positive correlation was observed between bone density and torque at all sites. Conclusion: CBCT is a useful tool to determine the bone density of the concerned areas before implant placement. The valuable information derived from the CBCT about bone quality may help clinicians to avoid the placement of implants into the very poorest qualities of bone, where failure is more likely.
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.