Trial reportClinical implant dentistry and related research2026
Hybrid Versus Moderate Rough Implants in Periodontally Compromised Patients: A Randomized Controlled Split-Mouth Study.
Trial report in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 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
Abstract
introTo compare clinical conditions and the implant marginal bone level after 1 year following placement of hybrid and moderate rough implants in the mandible of periodontally compromised patients using standardized radiographs.
methodsIn a multicenter study (three centers), thirty-nine periodontally compromised patients were randomly treated in a split-mouth study with both hybrid and moderate rough implants in the mandible at the premolar and molar site. In each patient, two tissue-level implants were inserted, and a healing cap was placed. After 3 months, the implants were restored with a FPD. The primary outcome consisted of radiographic assessments performed at 1-year follow-up.
resultsThirty-six patients completed the study. Both types of implants showed a survival rate of 94.4% ± 3.8% (95% CI 87.0%-100%); all lost implants failed to achieve osseointegration. There is no significant difference found in the change of the bone level over time within the first year between the two groups (p = 0.25 for mesial pocket bone, p = 0.99 for distal pocket bone, p = 0.98 for mesial proximal bone and p = 0.68 for distal proximal bone).
conclusionAfter one year, no statistically significant radiographic and clinical differences were observed between hybrid and moderately rough implants. However, peri-implant diseases often manifest after a longer period. This underscores the importance of extended follow-up. A subsequent evaluation is planned at the three-year mark.
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.