ArticleBDJ open2026
A 1.5-year randomized controlled trial comparing standard-sized implants and two diameters of mini-implants immediately loaded by mandibular overdenture: radiographic outcomes, short-term survival, and success rate.
Article in BDJ open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the marginal bone level changes (MBLC), survival, and success rate of 4 mini-implants (MIs) of two different diameters versus two standard-sized implants (SIs) that were loaded functionally and immediately by a complete mandibular denture. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study comprised 29 participants with conventional complete dentures; they were randomly allocated into three groups. Group S included 11 participants who received two SIs of 3.75 mm diameter, group M3 included 8 participants who received four MIs of 3 mm diameter, and group M2.5 included 10 participants who received four MIs of 2.5 mm diameter. MBLC was evaluated on each implant's mesial and distal sides after 18 months of loading. A paired t-test and one-way ANOVA were used for intragroup and intergroup comparisons, respectively (P ≤ 0.05). The evaluation of survival and success rates adhered to the criteria established by the International Congress of Oral Implantologists in Pisa (2007).
resultsImmediate loading was employed in all cases. No failure occurred in any case. The success rate after 18 months was 90.91% in the S group, 90.63% in the M3 group, and 90% in the M2.5 group. MBLC after 18 months of loading were 0.76 ± 0.62 mm mesially and 0.63 ± 0.90 mm distally in the S group, 1.04 ± 0.72 mm mesially and 1.05 ± 0.84 mm distally in the M3 group, and 1.37 ± 0.73 mm mesially and 1.11 ± 0.68 mm distally in the M2.5 group.
conclusionThe SIs group showed better radiographic results and success rates than the MIs groups. As the diameter of the implant decreases, the mean MBLC increases. However, the results of the MIs groups were within acceptable limits. The survival rate was 100% in the three groups.
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.