ArticleScientific reports2026
In vitro evaluation of different implant systems and their influence on primary stability.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Influence of Reduced Cortical Bone Compression by Implant Macrogeometry on Peri-Implant Bone Healing: An In Vitro and In Vivo Experimental Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
The aim of this in-vitro study was to compare the primary stability and bone quality changes of three milling systems for implants. Osteotomies were performed on fresh, low-density bovine ribs using three different milling techniques for the Strong SW implant system: conventional drilling according to the manufacturer's protocol (control), osseodensification, and bone expander (n = 5 per group). Prior to implant insertion, bone quality at the cervical, body, and apical regions was assessed using micro-computed tomography. Implants were then placed at the bone level, and primary stability was evaluated by measuring insertion torque with a digital torque meter. Bone quality and insertion torque values were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparison test (p = 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the cervical, body, and apical regions, as well as among the implant groups SIN, VERSAH, and MAXIMUS (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the insertion torque of the SIN group (35 ± 21.5 N/cm), VERSAH group (43.2 ± 27.1 N/cm), and MAXIMUS group (59.6 ± 28.5 N/cm) also showed no statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). These findings suggest a similarity in bone microarchitecture and insertion strength among the different implants studied. The three milling techniques demonstrated comparable performance, showing no significant differences in bone microarchitecture or primary stability. These results indicate that all systems provided similar conditions for implant insertion in low-density bone.
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.