ArticleCureus2025
Implant Stability in Narrow Posterior Alveolar Ridges: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Conventional Ridge Split and Osseodensification.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of implant stability using three osteotomy techniques- a randomised clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Article
- Article
- Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement Protocols: A Comparative Case-Based Perspective.Cureus · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSuccessful implant placement in the posterior mandible often requires augmentation of narrow ridges. This study aimed to compare the primary stability of dental implants placed using the conventional ridge split technique and the osseodensification method in narrow posterior mandibular ridges.
methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted involving 14 patients, with a total of 28 implants divided equally between two groups. Group I underwent conventional ridge splitting, and Group II received implant site preparation via osseodensification. Primary stability was evaluated immediately after implant placement using the Osstell Mentor device (Osstell AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) to obtain implant stability quotient (ISQ) values. Data was analyzed, and mean ISQs were compared using independent t-tests.
resultsImplants placed using the osseodensification technique exhibited significantly higher ISQ values compared to those placed using the conventional ridge split technique (p < 0.001). No significant difference in stability was observed between the lower first and second molar sites bilaterally within each group. The results indicated that osseodensification offered superior primary stability.
conclusionBoth the conventional ridge split and osseodensification techniques effectively enabled implant placement in narrow posterior mandibular ridges. However, the osseodensification technique demonstrated significantly greater primary stability, suggesting its potential advantage in clinical practice for achieving predictable outcomes in compromised ridge scenarios.
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.