ArticleFrontiers in oral health2025
Comparison of primary and secondary stability of a one-piece compressive conometric implant system in the posterior upper and lower jaws.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 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.
- Randomized clinical study to compare implant stability and bone loss between different implant designs.Bioinformation · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Implant stability plays a key role in establishing implant osseointegration and is a crucial factor in determining the appropriate timing for functional loading with a fixed prosthesis. This study aims to investigate the primary and secondary stability of a one-piece compressive conometric implant system in the posterior upper and lower jaws. Materials and methods: A total of 46 compressive one-piece dental implants (DIs) from ROOTT Trade Company were placed in the upper and lower jaws. Ready-made conometric TEC (titanium) with a prosthesis was fixed to the abutment. Implant stability was measured using an implant stability tester (AnyCheck device; NeoBiotech, Republic of Korea) by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at facial, oral, mesial, distal, and occlusal surfaces. These measures were collected at baseline immediately after implant insertion, after 3 months, and at 6 months. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare between the time points. Results: In total, 14 patients (8 men, 6 women; mean age 61.08 years; age range 35-79 years) were included. The median baseline RFA values show statistically significant differences between maxillary [55, interquartile range (IQR): 51-61] and mandibular (64, IQR: 60-67) as well as between men (59, IQR: 53-64) and women (67, IQR: 64-69). The occlusal surface shows the highest RFA compared to other surfaces. DI stability significantly increases in the maxilla and men after 6 months compared to the baseline ( Conclusions: This study suggests that the one-piece compressive conometric implant system demonstrates reliable primary and secondary stability in the posterior upper and lower jaws, with a notable improvement after 6 months.
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.