ArticleJournal of dental sciences2025
Effect of insertion load on insertion torque value.
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 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.
- The Influence of Insertion Torque on Stress Distribution in Peri-Implant Bones Around Ultra-Short Implants: An FEA Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Purpose: This study examined the effect of insertion load on implant primary stability by evaluating the insertion torque and insertion time in various implant designs. Materials and methods: Four implant designs were tested, including one cylindrical implant standard (S), two hybrid implants tapered effect (TE) and bone level (BL), and one conical implant bone level tapered (BLT). Polyurethane bone models of the maxillary posterior region were used. Insertion torque value (ITV) and insertion time, defined as the duration from implant placement initiation to platform alignment, were recorded under two load conditions, the minimum load and a load of 5.0 newton (N). A torque meter was used to capture torque-time curves, and the mean and standard deviation of ITV were calculated. Data were analyzed using a paired t-test ( Results: The minimum insertion load varied by design: implant S required 2.5 N, implants TE and BL each required 2.0 N, and implant BLT required 1.0 N. At minimum load, insertion torque was 8.68 N cm for implant S, 6.64 N cm for implant TE, 12.29 N cm for implant BL, and 29.52 N cm for implant BLT. Under 5.0 N, the values were 8.12, 7.82, 14.89, and 30.53 N cm, respectively. Insertion time decreased by up to 12.52 % from 1.0 N to 5.0 N, with significant differences in implant BLT. Conclusion: Hybrid implants are more sensitive to load variations. Optimizing the insertion load based on implant design can enhance clinical outcomes. The insertion load is a critical but often overlooked factor in primary implant stability.
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.