ReviewDentistry journal2025
Densifying the Future: A Critical Review of Osseodensification and Implant Dentistry.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
- Pilot Case Series of Lateral Ridge Augmentation Using a Collagenated Porcine-Derived Xenograft: Clinical, Histological, and Remodeling Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- SEM Evaluation of Surface Wear on Drills from Selected Implant Systems-In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of Undersized Drilling and Sequential Osseodensification on Primary Implant Stability in Simulated Bone Types III and IV: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osseodensification (OD) compacts trabecular bone during implant site preparation rather than removing it, potentially enhancing primary stability versus conventional drilling. This review critically appraised clinical and preclinical evidence for OD's biological and biomechanical efficacy in implant dentistry. We conducted electronic searches in seven databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, SciELO, LILACS, DOAJ) for the period January 2014 to March 2024. Studies comparing osseodensification with conventional drilling in clinical and large-animal models were included. Primary outcomes were insertion torque, implant stability quotient (ISQ), bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO), and complications. Of 75 retrieved records, 38 studies (27 clinical, 11 preclinical) provided analysable data. Based on descriptive averages from the narrative synthesis, osseodensification increased mean insertion torque by around 45% (range 32-59%) and initial ISQ by 3-10 units compared with conventional drilling. These gains permitted immediate loading in 78% of cases and shortened operating time (mean reduction 15-20 min). Animal studies demonstrated 12-28% higher BIC and increased peri-implant bone density at 4-12 weeks. No serious adverse events were recorded. Postoperative morbidity was similar between techniques. The collated evidence indicates that osseodensification significantly improves primary stability and may accelerate healing protocols, particularly in low-density (Misch D3-D4) bone. However, the predominance of short-term data and heterogeneity in surgical parameters limit definitive conclusions. Long-term randomised controlled trials with standardised protocols are needed before universal clinical recommendations can be established.
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.