ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of implant primary stability using different drilling protocols: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07378020 (A Comparative Study of Osseodensification Burs Versus Osteotome Preparation on the Stability of Implants Placed in Low Bone Density Areas), which is not on this 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.
A Comparative Study of Osseodensification Burs Versus Osteotome Preparation on the Stability of Implants Placed in Low Bone Density Areas: a Randomized Controlled Trial
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
Abstract
backgroundImplant surgery in the maxilla, particularly in regions with D3-D4 bone quality, poses significant challenges due to the low-density nature of the bone. In such cases, clinicians often need to deviate from standard drilling protocols recommended by implant manufacturers to optimize primary stability. These modifications may include omitting the use of a countersink drill or ending the osteotomy preparation one step earlier, based on the clinical judgement of the operator. However, there is a lack of in vitro data quantifying how these tailored surgical modifications affect implant primary stability in low-density bone. This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical impact of different drilling techniques on the primary stability of dental implants placed in D3-D4 type bone conditions.
methodsAn in vitro experimental study was conducted using bovine costal bone specimens resembling D3-D4 bone quality. A total of 21 Straumann BLT implants (4.1 mm × 10 mm) were placed using three drilling protocols: undersized drilling (n = 7), standard drilling (n = 7), and countersinking (n = 7). Primary stability was assessed via insertion torque (IT), removal torque (RT), and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) using the Ostell Beacon device. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc tests. Significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe undersized and standard drilling groups showed significantly higher median insertion torque (20.0 Ncm and 18.0 Ncm, respectively) compared to the countersinking group (8.0 Ncm) (p < 0.05). Similarly, removal torque values were significantly greater in the undersized and standard drilling groups (27.0 Ncm each) than in the countersinking group (9.0 Ncm) (p < 0.05). Median ISQ values were highest in the undersized drilling group (77.0), followed by the standard drilling(75.0) and countersinking (69.0) groups. The difference between the undersized drilling and countersinking groups was statistically significant (p < 0.05).
conclusionsIn low-density bone models simulating D3-D4 bone, the use of a countersinking drill resulted in significantly reduced primary stability compared to standard and undersized drilling techniques. Undersized drilling proved more effective in enhancing implant stability when using tapered implants under low-density bone conditions.
trial registrationNot applicable. This study was conducted on bovine in vitro models and does not involve human participants.
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.