Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of the stability of implants placed in low-quality bone following the use of osseodensification technique versus ridge expanders:randomized clinical trial.
Trial report 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 NCT05330546 (Evaluation of the Stability of Implants Placed in Low Quality Bone Following the Use of Osseodensification Technique Versus Ridge Expanders), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of the Stability of Implants Placed in Low Quality Bone Following the Use of Osseodensification Technique Versus Ridge Expanders: Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of implant stability using three osteotomy techniques- a randomised clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
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
backgroundLow bone quality, as well as narrow ridge width, presents a challenge for implant placement and affects implant stability. To date, the effectiveness of a specific technique to enhance implant stability in low-bone quality, along with ridge expansion, is not well established. This study aimed to evaluate implant stability in low-quality bone using osseodensification technique (OD) versus ridge expanders.
methodsTwenty-two patients with one missing upper tooth and low-quality bone were recruited. The osteotomy site was prepared via either ridge expanders or the OD technique. The assessments included primary implant stability and secondary stability at 3 and 6 months, as well as bone width at different vertical levels (2, 4, and 8 mm), evaluated preoperatively, baseline (immediately postoperatively), at 3 and 6 months. Additionally, pain outcome (PO) was assessed.
resultsIntergroup comparisons of implant stability between interventions revealed no statistically significant differences at baseline or 3 months (P > 0.05), whereas there was a statistically significant difference at 6 months (P = 0.0268) in favour of the OD group. The PO revealed no statistically significant differences at baseline or after 1 week (P > 0.05). The ridge width between interventions showed statistically significant differences at baseline and after 3 and 6 months (P < 0.05) at 2, 4, and 8 mm in favour of the OD group.
conclusionsConsidering the significant preoperative difference in crestal ridge width and the short follow-up period, the OD technique appears to be effective in low-quality bone, improving implant stability and enabling the expansion of narrow ridges with minimal postoperative pain.
trial registrationThis study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov on April 2nd, 2022, with the registration number NCT05330546.
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.