ArticleBMC oral health2025
Inter-implant distance correlated to different preparation protocol on cortical bone: an animal 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. 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.
- Mechanobiological Response of Peri-Implant Bone to Variations in Inter-Implant Distance: A Finite Element Analysis of Conometric Implants at Crestal and Subcrestal Positions.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInter-implant distance (IID) plays a crucial role in maintaining peri-implant bone stability and osseointegration. Narrower IIDs (< 3 mm) have been associated with increased bone loss, but the threshold varies with implant connection type. The undersized preparation protocol, which induces static strain in the bone, enhances primary stability but may lead to microstructural damage, remodelling, or necrosis. The effect of this technique on osseointegration in adjacent implants with varying IIDs is not well documented. This study investigates the impact of undersized and non-undersized preparation protocols on osseointegration at different IIDs.
methodsThe study utilized eight sheep, with 64 implants placed in the mandibles following two surgical protocols: undersized preparation (UP) and non-undersized preparation (NUP). Implants were positioned at two IIDs (2 mm and 4 mm). Biomechanical, histomorphometric, and micromorphometric analyses were performed five weeks post-surgery. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume fraction (BVTV), and bone mineral density (BMD) were measured in the regions of interest (inner and outer portions relative to the IID). A linear mixed model approach was applied to analyse the data with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe analyses showed no statistically significant differences between the surgical protocols or IIDs for the evaluated parameters (p >0.05). Nevertheless, trends were observed, with higher BIC and increased bone remodelling in the inner regions at 2 mm IID, particularly when using the undersized preparation protocol. Additionally, BVTV values were higher in the inner portions at 4 mm IID, suggesting reduced bone remodelling compared to 2 mm IID. These results indicate that while mechanical stress influenced trends in bone response, the overall resilience of peri-implant bone healing was evident.
conclusionsNo significant differences in osseointegration were observed between surgical protocols or IIDs. However, the trend of increased remodelling and higher BIC at 2 mm IID highlights the mechanical impact of undersized preparation in close implant spacing. These findings emphasize the complexity of peri-implant bone response to mechanical forces, necessitating further clinical studies to validate these results in human models.
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.