ArticleJournal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects2025
Evaluation of the effect of osseodensification on the peri-implant condition: A clinical, biochemical, and radiographic trial.
Article in Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This trial aimed to compare osseodensification with traditional implant site preparation in terms of clinical outcomes, radiographic findings, interleukin-6 (IL-6), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels in the peri-implant sulcus. Methods: Sixteen patients were randomly assigned to two groups. In group 1, eleven sites received a small-diameter implant according to the conventional method; in group 2, eleven sites received an implant after osseodensification. The modified plaque index, modified bleeding (sulcus) index, and peri-implant probing depth were recorded for all patients on the day of implant placement (baseline) as well as at 3 and 6 months. The preoperative and postoperative alveolar ridge widths were measured, and the marginal bone loss (MBL) around the implant was assessed. Gingival crevicular samples were assayed using ELISA. Results: For the MPI, mSBI, and PPD, no statistically significant differences were reported across the groups at baseline and 3 and 6 months. Group 2 showed a lower marginal bone level and higher bone density, lower VEGF, and lower IL-6 levels than group 1. Conclusion: Osseodensification was shown to preserve bone and augment the ridge width, unlike conventional osteotomy with a small-diameter implant. The association of VEGF and IL-6 may be used as a marker for bone resorption and revascularization around dental implants.
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.