ArticleCureus2026
Evaluation and Comparison of Crestal Bone Loss Around Dental Implants Placed Using Conventional Drilling, Bone Expansion, and Ridge Split Techniques: An In Vivo Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTooth loss is often followed by alveolar ridge resorption, which may compromise implant placement and long-term stability. Different implant site preparation techniques, such as conventional drilling, bone expansion, and ridge split procedures, are used to manage varying ridge conditions. These techniques may influence peri-implant bone remodeling in different ways. This study aimed to evaluate and compare crestal bone loss around dental implants placed using conventional drilling, bone expansion, and ridge split techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective clinical comparative study included 72 implant sites in patients aged 25-55 years who required implant-supported rehabilitation. The implant sites were divided into three groups based on the implant site preparation technique used: conventional drilling (CD), bone expansion (BE), and ridge split (RS), with 24 implants in each group. Crestal bone levels were evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography immediately after implant placement and at 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up. Mesial and distal crestal bone loss were measured and analyzed statistically using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey's post hoc test for intergroup comparisons and repeated-measures ANOVA for intragroup comparisons. Categorical variables were compared with the chi-square test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsCrestal bone loss increased progressively over time in all three groups. Intergroup comparison revealed statistically significant differences in both mesial and distal crestal bone loss at 3, 6, and 12 months (p < 0.001). The ridge split group demonstrated the highest bone loss, followed by the bone expansion group, while the conventional drilling group showed the least bone loss at all time intervals. Pairwise comparisons between all groups were also statistically significant (p < 0.001). Intragroup analysis showed a significant increase in crestal bone loss over time within each group (p < 0.001), except for the comparison between 6 and 12 months in the conventional drilling group, which was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Implant site preparation techniques significantly influence peri-implant crestal bone remodeling. Conventional drilling demonstrated the least crestal bone loss, whereas ridge split procedures showed greater bone remodeling during the follow-up period.
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.