ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Evaluation of Different Implant Systems in Osseointegration of Implants: A Clinical Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the osseointegration outcomes of different implant systems, focusing on their effectiveness and reliability in achieving successful implant integration in various clinical scenarios. Methods: This prospective clinical study included 60 patients, divided equally into three groups based on the implant system used: System A, System B, and System C. Osseointegration was evaluated through clinical and radiographic parameters over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: All three implant systems demonstrated successful osseointegration. However, statistical differences were noted in implant stability quotient (ISQ) values and marginal bone loss among the groups. System A exhibited superior ISQ values (mean: 78 ± 3) compared to System B (75 ± 4) and System C (73 ± 5). Marginal bone loss was minimal in System A (0.9 ± 0.3 mm). Conclusion: System A demonstrated the highest osseointegration success, followed by Systems B and C. These findings provide clinicians with evidence-based insights into implant system selection.
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.