ArticleBioinformation2026
Assessment of narrow-diameter implant survival for single-crown rehabilitation in the molar area.
Article in Bioinformation, 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
Literature lacks substantial data on survival rates of narrow-diameter dental implants (<3.75 mm) supporting single crowns in posterior molar regions under high masticatory loads. This randomized study compared clinical outcomes in 80 adults receiving narrow- diameter (n=40) versus standard-diameter (≥3.75 mm, n=40) implants for single molar crowns, assessing BOP, PD, mobility and crestal bone levels at 6 and 12 months. Narrow implants showed significantly less crestal bone loss at 6 months (p=0.001) and 12 months (p<0.001) than standard implants; BOP was lower in the narrow group at 3/6 months (p=0.01), though not significant at study end (p=0.42). PD increase was higher in narrow implants at 6/12 months (p<0.001), but implant mobility remained comparable between groups. Thus, we show by confirming equivalent 1-year success of narrow-diameter implants in molars, expanding minimally invasive options for compromised ridges despite limited prior evidence.
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.