ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Influence of Drilling Protocol on Primary Implant Stability Depending on Different Bone Qualities and Implant Macro-Designs, Lengths, and Diameters.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Conceptual Implant Stability Index Framework for Computational Risk Assessment in Implant Dentistry.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Influence of Reduced Cortical Bone Compression by Implant Macrogeometry on Peri-Implant Bone Healing: An In Vitro and In Vivo Experimental Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary implant stability is a critical factor for successful osseointegration and long-term implant success. This study investigates the impact of drilling protocol modifications on primary stability, considering different bone qualities and implant macro-designs, lengths, and diameters. MATERIAL AND
methodsThree implant designs-two parallel-walled and one tapered-were tested with diameters ranging from 3.4 to 5.2 mm and lengths from 7.5 to 14.5 mm. Implants were placed in polyurethane foam blocks simulating different bone densities (10, 15, 25, and 35 PCF). A standard drilling protocol was used in all groups, with modifications based on bone quality: overpreparation in dense bone and underpreparation in softer bone. Primary stability was evaluated using insertion torque (IT). The optimal IT range was defined as 25-50 Ncm, based on clinical guidelines for immediate loading. The influence of drilling protocol adaptations on stability parameters was assessed.
resultsInsertion torque was primarily influenced by bone density and implant diameter, with implant length playing a minor role. In dense bone (D1, D2), underpreparation improved torque values, especially in smaller implants, while overpreparation reduced them. The highest torques occurred with 5.2 mm implants, sometimes exceeding 80 Ncm. Standard protocols did not consistently achieve optimal torque across implant types. In soft bone (D3), underpreparation-particularly with tapered implants-was modestly beneficial. In very soft bone (D4), none of the protocols reliably reached the desired torque range.
conclusionsAdapting drilling protocols to bone density improves insertion torque, especially with wider implants and in denser bone. Underpreparation is generally more effective than overpreparation. However, in very soft bone, neither implant geometry nor drilling adaptations reliably achieve optimal primary stability, highlighting the need for additional strategies.
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.