Trial reportScientific reports2026
Virtual bone-implant contact surface effect on implant stability in fresh extraction and healed sites: a pilot randomised clinical trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the effect of bone-implant contact surface area (BIC) on implant stability at fresh extraction sites without grafting, at simultaneous grafting, and at healed implant sites using a novel digital workflow that combines preoperative CBCT segmentation with postoperative intraoral scanning. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 30 patients requiring dental implants in the upper premolar or molar regions. The patients were divided into three groups. Group I received immediate implant placement with grafts, Group II received immediate implant placement without grafts, and Group III followed the standard implant placement protocol for healed edentulous regions. All implants were placed by the same surgeon using the same implant system and the standard surgical protocol recommended by the manufacturer. In Group I, the residual gap was filled with a bone graft and covered with a membrane after implant placement. BIC and virtual non-contact surfaces (BINC) were calculated using digital registration. All results were compared among the groups based on insertion torque and ISQ values. The final analysis included 28 patients (10 males and 18 females). Group III showed better primary stability and insertion torque than the immediate placement groups (P = 0.014 and P = 0.007, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between the implants placed Group I and Group II in terms of the insertion torque, or ISQ. The intraoperative ISQ value and the ISQ-60 days were strongly correlated with BIC only in Group II (r = 0.58, P = 0.05 and r = 0.62, P = 0.03, respectively). Group I and Group II lead to similar results regarding primary stability. Group III presented greater stability values. BIC served as a meaningful indicator of early mechanical stability in Group II.
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.