Trial reportJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society2026
A comparative evaluation of peri-implant soft and hard tissues between internal hexagonal and internal conical type of implant-abutment connection: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the effect of internal hexagonal and internal conical implant-abutment connection (IAC) on peri-implant hard and soft tissues. SETTINGS AND
designParallel arm, randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 44 participants requiring rehabilitation with single implant-supported crown in the posterior region were enrolled and randomly allocated to two groups (n = 22). Participants in Group 1 were rehabilitated with implants with internal hexagonal IAC while in Group 2 with implants having internal conical IAC. Following delayed loading protocol, implants were restored with single implant-supported crown and baseline data along with subsequent follow up data at 3rd, 6th, and 12th months after occlusal loading were recorded. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Data were analyzed using the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 29.0. Categorical variables were represented as counts/percentages, whereas continuous variables were denoted as mean ± standard deviation. Unpaired t-tests and Chi-square tests were used for group comparisons.
resultsAt 12 months, crestal bone loss was lower in the internal conical group (0.78 ± 0.03 mm) than the internal hexagonal group (0.81 ± 0.02 mm; P < 0.001). Probing depth was consistently shallower in the internal conical group (3.17 ± 0.09 mm vs. 3.47 ± 0.17 mm; P < 0.001). Interleukin-1β levels were significantly lower in the internal conical group across all time points, with large effect sizes.
conclusionInternal conical IAC showed lower inflammation, improved bone preservation, and shallower probing depths compared to internal hexagonal IAC. Despite small structural effect sizes, the inflammatory response indicated a meaningful biological advantage. Both IAC remain viable, with selection guided by patient-specific needs and long-term outcomes.
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.