ArticleEuropean oral research2025
The effect of osseodensification versus conventional drilling technique on bone osteotomy with and without implant placement in dog's maxilla.
Article in European oral research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigated the bone regenerative potential following immediate implant insertion using osseodensifying Densah drills compared to conventional drills. Materials and methods: Eight adult male mongrel dogs were randomly assigned to three groups using a split-mouth design. Atraumatic extraction of the maxillary second premolar was performed in all dogs, and the sockets of the distal roots served as the control group. Group I was subdivided into two subgroups: in subgroup IA, the mesial socket of the second premolar was drilled using NucleOSS drills, while in subgroup IB, the socket was prepared using osseodensifying Densah drills. The dogs were euthanized immediately after osteotomy preparation. Group II was also subdivided into two subgroups: in subgroup IIA, osteotomy preparation was performed using NucleOSS drills, while in subgroup IIB, the osteotomy was prepared using Densah drills, followed by the insertion of NucleOSS T6 implants in both subgroups. The dogs were euthanized two months after implant insertion. Specimens were stained using Hematoxylin and Eosin as well as Masson Trichrome stain and subjected to histomorphometric analysis. Cone beam computed tomography was used to measure radiographic bone density. Results: Subgroup IA exhibited areas of thermal osteonecrosis around the drilling site. Subgroup IB showed bone chips compressed into the bone marrow spaces of the osteotomy wall. The bone area percentage and bone density around implants in subgroup IIB were significantly higher than those in subgroup IIA (P<0.05). Conclusion: Osseodensification is an effective technique for increasing bone density around implants in areas of poor bone quality, which is considered a promising indicator of long-term clinical success.
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.