ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2025
The Success of Chemically Modified, Sandblasted, and Large-Grit Acid-Etched Implants in Uncontrolled Diabetic Patients: A Case‒Control Study.
Article in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of the current study was to assess the survival rate of chemically modified, sandblasted, and large-grit acid-etched dental implants placed in diabetic patients. Methodology: The current study is a case‒control study on diabetic patients. Patients consented to have the implant surgery after being advised about the risk of failure and associated risks if they kept ignoring follow-up and adjusting their blood glucose levels. Patients were divided into three groups: Group A, with hemoglobin A1c less than 6.5%; Group B, with hemoglobin A1c ranging from 9 to 10.5%; and Group C, ranging from 10.6 to 12%. The primary outcome was bone loss assessed via radiography, and the secondary outcome was stability assessed via resonance frequency analysis. One-way ANOVA was used to assess the statistical significance of intergroup continuous data, and p value was fixed at 0.05. Results: A total of thirty bone-level dental implants were included in the current study. After 8 weeks, the assessment of bone loss using digital radiography showed that in group (A), the bone loss was 0.08 ± 0.08 mm; in group (B), the bone loss was 0.2 ± 0.09 mm; and in group (C), the bone loss was 0.3 ± 0.07 mm. Bone loss was significantly different between patients with controlled and uncontrolled diabetes (P = 0.001).Regarding implant stability, at eight weeks, the results showed a statistically nonsignificant difference among the three groups (P value = 0.08). Group (A) had a greater percentage of RFA reads (74.3 ± 4.2) than groups (B) (76.8 ± 4.8) and (C) (78.2 ± 1.5). Conclusion: However, the implant showed successful primary stability. However, the use of chemically modified, sandblasted, and large-grit acid-etched dental implants is not recommended in patients with uncontrolled diabetes because of significant crestal bone loss.
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.