ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2026
Hybrid Funnel Technique Reduces Marginal Bone Loss Versus Conventional Drilling: A 3-Year, Prospective, Non-randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.
Article 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
purposeThis study aimed to compare marginal bone loss (MBL) associated with Hybrid Funnel Technique (HFT) and conventional drill osteotomy for implant site preparation when bioactive implants are used, testing the null hypothesis that no significant differences occur at 1- and 3 years. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective non-randomized controlled clinical trial included patients undergoing implant rehabilitation with bioactive-surface implants. Implants were placed using either conventional subtractive drilling (control group) or HFT (test group), which combines selective cortical preparation with medullary osteocompaction. The primary outcome was radiographic MBL at 3-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included bleeding on probing (BoP) and plaque index (PI). Statistical analyses were performed at implant level, and linear mixed-effects models were used to account for clustering within patients and adjust for potential confounders.
resultsA total of 87 implants in 43 patients were analyzed (42 control, 45 HFT). At 1-year follow-up, the test group reported significantly lower MBL (0.33 ± 0.43 mm vs. mean = 0.78 ± 0.82 mm; Mann-Whitney p-value = 0.006). At 3 years, MBL was significantly higher in the conventional site preparation group compared with the HFT group (1.34 ± 0.79 mm vs. 0.46 ± 0.69 mm; p < 0.001). In multivariate mixed-effects analysis, the implant site preparation technique was the only variable independently associated with MBL at 3 years (β = -1.10 mm, 95% CI = -1.675 to -0.527, p < 0.001), while insertion torque and other baseline variables showed no significant association. In addition, the HFT group demonstrated significantly lower BoP and PI scores, indicating more favorable peri-implant soft tissue conditions.
conclusionsDespite the use of identical bioactive-surface implants, implant site preparation technique significantly influenced peri-implant bone remodeling. HFT demonstrated superior preservation of marginal bone over 3 years, suggesting that reduction of cortical compression during osteotomy provides a biological advantage. Implant site preparation remains a key determinant of long-term peri-implant bone stability.
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.