Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025
Implant stability in the posterior maxilla: clinical and radiographic comparison of osseodensification and conventional drilling: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04442763 (Assessment of Dental Implants Stability After Using Osseodensification Method Versus Conventional Drilling in the Posterior Maxilla), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Assessment of Dental Implants Stability After Using Osseodensification Method Versus Conventional Drilling in the Posterior Maxilla: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of implant stability using three osteotomy techniques- a randomised clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Immediate Implant Placement in the Mandibular Molar Septum Using Osseodensification: A Case Report with 4-Year Follow-Up.Reports (MDPI) · 2026Article
- Lateral Wall Failure During Implant Osteotomy Preparation in a Standardized Narrow-Ridge Model: Osseodensification Versus Conventional Drilling-An Ex Vivo Controlled Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Primary Stability of Implants Inserted Using Different Osseodensification Systems in Low-Density Bone: An In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this randomized clinical trial was to clinically and radiographically compare the effect of osseodensification (OD) and conventional drilling (CD) on implant stability in the posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty patients received 20 implants after being randomly assigned for osteotomy preparation with either OD (test) (n = 10) or CD (control) (n = 10). Implant stability quotient (ISQ) and crestal bone loss were monitored closely from implant insertion through 12 months of loading. Insertion torque and implant survival were also assessed during the study.
resultsIn OD group, one patient was lost to follow up and all other implants were in Function after 12 months of loading (9/9), while only 8/10 implants survived in CD group. OD was associated with significantly higher mean ISQ values; post-insertion and during the 1st month of healing, compared to CD. A high relatively unchanged stability was observed throughout osseointegration with OD method, while a stability dip occurred during the 2nd and 3rd weeks of healing in CD group. There was no significant difference in crestal bone loss and insertion torque between groups.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, OD seems to provide earlier implant stability in terms of ISQ values, and may improve survival rates in the posterior maxilla, compared to CD, with no negative impact on crestal bone after 12 months of implant loading. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT04442763 (registration date 15/6/2020). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: OD may be used as an alternative to CD to achieve earlier implant stability in the posterior maxilla.
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.