Trial reportBrazilian dental journal2026
Additively Manufactured Implants for Mandibular Overdentures: RCT Part 1 - Clinical and Peri-Implant Outcomes.
Trial report in Brazilian dental journal, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study reported preliminary clinical outcomes of a randomized clinical trial comparing immediate and conventional loading protocols for mandibular overdentures supported by two narrow-diameter implants with a regular platform manufactured by additive technology. The focus was on primary implant stability, assessed using insertion torque and the implant stability quotient (ISQ). Sixteen completely edentulous participants (11 men, 5 women; mean age: 67.7 ± 7.6 years) received new complete dentures prior to surgery and were followed for up to 180 days, depending on the outcome assessed. Insertion torque was recorded at implant placement (motor and manual wrench), implant stability was measured at baseline and 90 days, and peri-implant healing and health parameters were evaluated at 7, 14, 30, 60, 90, and 180 days. A significance level of 5% was adopted for all statistical analyses. Immediate loading was performed on the day of implant placement, while conventional loading occurred after a 12-week healing period. The immediate loading group showed higher insertion torque (motor: 58.13 ± 5.18 Ncm, p=0.001; wrench: 58.44 ± 4.37 Ncm, p=0.004). ISQ increased significantly from baseline to 90 days in both groups (Immediate: 68.05 ± 6.08 to 72.44 ± 3.38; Conventional: 65.58 ± 5.47 to 70.72 ± 4.63; p<0.001), with no significant between-group differences (p=0.117). Peri-implant healing was more stable in the conventional group, with 100% of bone beds healed at 30 days (p=0.01). Significant between-group differences were observed at selected time points for peri-implant outcomes (p<0.05). Within the limitations of this preliminary short-term evaluation, both protocols appeared clinically feasible.
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.