Trial reportClinical oral implants research2026
Clinical and Radiographic Performance of Two Distinct Sandblasted, Large-Grit, Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Microbiological and Immunological Parameters in Sandblasted, Large-Grit Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces: A Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Trial
- Turkish Dentists' Knowledge of Implant Options for Atrophic Jaws: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Cureus · 2026Article
- Implant Surface Characteristics and Peri-Implant Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Microbiological Evidence.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
Abstract
aimTo compare the clinical performance of two sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched implant surfaces regarding changes in radiographic marginal bone level (MBL) 12 months after loading. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this randomized, split-mouth, dual-center clinical trial, each patient received one test (modified hydrophilic surface) implant and one control (conventional surface) implant. The primary endpoint was the change in MBL measured 12 months after loading. Secondary outcomes included the assessment of soft tissue wound healing index (WHI), adverse events, implant stability quotient (ISQ), peri-implant soft tissue parameters (probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, keratinized mucosa width), and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) measured with the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14). Generalized linear models, paired Student's t-tests, and Wilcoxon tests were employed for data analysis.
resultsThe study included 68 subjects (136 implants). No statistically significant differences were found between groups for any of the clinical outcomes measured. The mean change in MBL from loading to 12 months was 0.04 mm (SD = 0.39) for the modified hydrophilic implants and 0.07 mm (SD = 0.22) for the conventional implants (p = 0.658), with no significant differences between the groups.
conclusionsOver a 12-month period of functional loading, both implant surfaces demonstrated comparable performance regarding peri-implant bone stability, safety, and clinical outcomes. Although a small but statistically significant difference between groups was observed in MBL changes from baseline to 12 months (MD = 0.15 mm), no significant differences were found in MBL changes from loading to 12 months (primary outcome), ISQ, soft tissue healing, or peri-implant health.
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.