SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Primary and secondary stability in implants placed in low-density bone using conventional vs. osseodensification technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of implant stability using three osteotomy techniques- a randomised clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Minimally Invasive Implant Rehabilitation in Geriatric Patients: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Contemporary Strategies to Avoid Extensive Bone Augmentation Procedures.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Influence of Implant-Specific Characteristics on Insertion Torque and Primary Stability: An Ex Vivo Comparison of Two Implant Systems with a Shared Macrodesign.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Mechanostat-Informed Strain Mapping of Osseodensification-Inspired Peri-Implant Densification Versus Conventional Drilling in Osteoporotic-like Low-Density Cancellous Bone: A 3D Static Linear Finite Element Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne of the most important clinical challenges in implant dentistry is achieving stability in low-density bone. Identifying a method that maximizes implant stability in bones of low quantity and quality is crucial. Osseodensification (OD) has been suggested as an alternative to conventional drilling (CD) to improve implant stability. This study compared the primary and secondary stability of two commonly used techniques for implant placement in low-density bone: CD and OD.
methodsSearch was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar up to January 2024. Studies that evaluated dental implant placement in low-density bone using the OD technique and compared it with CD were included in this study. These studies assessed primary and secondary stability using the Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ). Additionally, other outcomes such as marginal bone loss (MBL), crestal bone level (CBL), probing depth (PD), and plaque index (PI) were analyzed. The meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and presented as overall mean differences along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values for each outcome. Subgroup analyses were also performed for a few outcomes, primarily by follow-up time or anatomical site of intervention. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 2, was used for all analyses.
resultsSeven studies met the inclusion criteria. The follow-up periods varied across studies and included 4, 6, 8, and 12 months. There are no statistically significant differences between OD and CD groups in primary stability (MD = 4.13, P = 0.13) or secondary stability (MD = 1.78, P = 0.11). No significant differences were found in MBL and PI. However, for PD, the OD group showed a significantly lower PD at 12 months. In the CBL outcome, a significant difference in favor of OD was observed only at the palatal site.
conclusionThere is not enough strong evidence to say that OD is better than CD in the long term. More randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with standardized protocols and longer follow-up periods are recommended. Additional long-term, well-designed comparative human studies are needed to declare the advantages and disadvantages of the OD technique vs. the CD technique. There was some heterogeneity across sites, gender, duration of follow-up, implant system, and operator, but not affect the comparability and generalizability of this meta-analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.