Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2026
Clinical parameters of implants placed bone level with cover screw or healing abutment techniques. 6 months post-surgery report from a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis randomized clinical trial evaluated marginal bone level (MBL) changes and peri-implant soft tissue health in single implants placed at crestal bone level, comparing healing abutments exposed at gingival level versus cover screws submerged with a flap.
methodsSixty-six PrimeTaper implants (Dentsply, Mannheim, Germany) were placed in 45 healthy adult patients and randomized to either the healing abutment group (n = 34) or the cover screw group (n = 32). A fully digital workflow was used for provisional and definitive zirconia crowns delivered at 3-4 months. Clinical and radiographic follow-ups were performed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Outcomes included Bleeding upon Scanbody positioning (BuSP), bleeding upon Prosthetic Abutment application (BuPA) and Mombelli modified plaque score, MBL, and prosthetic complications.
resultsBaseline characteristics were balanced between groups. Implant survival was 100%, with one mucositis case in the healing abutment group. Soft tissue assessment revealed reduced BuSP in the healing abutment group, where approx. 75% of implants showed no BuPA at follow-up (p < 0.001). Mombelli modified plaque score improved over time and did not differ significantly between groups.
conclusionBoth techniques yielded stable peri-implant tissues and comparable MBL changes at 6 months. Healing abutment application reduced bleeding during prosthetic clinical procedures and avoided flap re-entry, offering a simpler, less invasive, and equally effective alternative to cover screw protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41559425What 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.