ArticleJournal of oral & maxillofacial research
Implant Primary and Secondary Stability after Site Preparation with Electromagnetic Osteotomes or Osseodensification Burs: a Randomized Controlled Trial with Split-Mouth Design.
Article in Journal of oral & maxillofacial research. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this split-mouth randomized clinical trial is to compare implant primary and secondary stability over 90 days following site preparation with electromagnetic osteotomes or osseodensification burs. Material and Methods: Nineteen patients received two identical implants in contralateral posterior maxillary sites. Test sites were prepared with electromagnetic osteotomes (EO), and control sites were prepared with osseodensification burs (ODB), reaching the same osteotomy diameter. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was recorded at implant placement and after 7, 14, 21, 28, 60 and 90 days. Surgical time, final insertion torque and eventual complications were recorded. Radiographic marginal bone levels were assessed at surgery (T0), prosthesis delivery (T1), and 1 year after loading (T2). Results: Median final insertion torque did not differ significantly in the two techniques (EO: 58 [IQR 23] Ncm; ODB: 61 [IQR 21.5] Ncm; P = 0.15). Baseline implant stability quotient (ISQ) was significantly higher in ODB sites (75.19 [SD 4.95]) than in EO sites (70.66 [SD 6.03]) (P = 0.004). Mean ISQ values were significantly higher in the ODB group at all timepoints (P < 0.05). Marginal bone levels showed no significant differences between techniques at T1 or T2, and final insertion torque was the only variable significantly associated with initial bone remodeling (P = 0.016). All inserted implants were in function at T2. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this randomized controlled trial conducted in posterior maxillary sites with low bone density, osseodensification burs resulted in significantly higher implant stability, as measured by ISQ values at placement and during early healing, compared with electromagnetic osteotomes, despite similar insertion torque values. Multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between insertion torque and early radiographic changes in marginal bone levels, independent of the preparation technique.
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.