ArticlePloS one2026
Analysis of osseodensification with two drill systems versus conventional technique for dental implants -A paired comparative ex vivo study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare conventional and osseodensification techniques assessing insertion/removal torque, stability (ISQ), maximum temperature, and bone structural alterations, as well as evaluating the performance of osseodensification with two bur systems: Densah®/Versah and Bone Reamer Drills®/WF.
methodsSixteen bovine ribs were prepared into standardized samples. Each bone block received three osteotomies using different techniques following manufacturers' protocols: G1 - conventional burs; G2 - osseodensification with Densah®/Versah burs (VS); G3 - osseodensification with Bone Reamer Drills®/WF burs. Osteotomies were performed under irrigation with 0.9% saline at 4-6 °C. Heat generation was recorded with a thermocouple; torque was measured at implant insertion and removal; ISQ was obtained after implant insertion using Osstell ISQ positioned 2 mm from the SmartPeg at a 45º angle. The burs were weighed before and after perforations and analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Bone samples also underwent SEM analysis after implant removal.
resultsThe osseodensification groups exhibited increased insertion and removal torque values and bone compaction at the implant interface was observed. There was no significant increases in ISQ or maximum temperature compared to conventional drilling. No significant mass loss was observed in either systems.
conclusionBone instrumentation with both osseodensification kits improved primary implant stability, demonstrating higher insertion and removal torque values than conventional drilling in type IV bone. No significant ISQ and temperature differences were found. SEM revealed compacted bone at the implant interface in the osseodensification groups. No significant mass changes were observed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that both techniques are safe and effective for clinical recommendation.
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.