Trial reportBMC oral health2026
The effect of different osseodensification techniques on implant stability in the maxillary anterior esthetic zone. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 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
objectivesTo clinically and radiographically compare two osseodensification techniques in terms of implant stability and osseointegration in a split-mouth design. MATERIALS AND
methods7 patients with an edentulous maxillary anterior area who need implant placement were divided into 2 groups. Group A included 7 implants and was prepared using the Densah Bur technique (DB-Group), while Group B included 7 implants and was prepared using the Magnetic Mallet technique (MM-Group). Surgery was performed, followed by clinical and radiographic follow-up to evaluate implant stability in both groups. A linear mixed model (LMM) statistical analysis was utilized to handle the clustering effect of the data.
resultThe mixed model revealed a stable data analysis owing to the significant intercept for all of the dependent variables (P < 0.001). Densah Burs technique demonstrated lower postoperative pain, faster wound healing, higher implant stability, and greater preservation of labial bone thickness, while both methods showed similar long-term bone density and crestal width outcomes.
conclusionWithin the confines of this study, the rotary-based Densah Bur osseodensification technique was associated with higher implant stability and labial plate thickness, alongside comparable bone density. These findings suggest potentially more predictable osteotomy compaction and autografting in the maxillary anterior esthetic zone implant osteotomy preparation.
trial registrationTrial was retrospectively registered at pactr.samrc.ac.za [PACTR202412717492416-(2024-12-31)].
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.