A Comparative Study of Crestal Bone Loss and Implant Stability between Osteotome and Conventional Implant Insertion Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective randomized controlled clinical study was to assess the crestal bone loss and the implant stability in implants that were placed by the osteotome technique compared with the conventional drilling technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six screw type Straumann SLA® oral implants (Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland) were inserted in the anterior segment of maxilla of 30 patients. The implant site was prepared randomly using either osteotome technique (test group) or the conventional drilling technique (control group). Radio frequency analysis (RFA) values at implant placement and after 3 months were recorded. The crestal bone loss was measured using digital subtraction radiography technique after 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: RFA demonstrated a statistically significant higher primary stability for implants in the osteotome group than that of the conventional group (p=.026) at the time of implant insertion. However, there was no statistically significant difference between both groups 3 months after the surgery (p=.06). At month 3, the osteotome group caused significantly more crestal bone loss than the conventional group (p=.04). At months 6 and 12, both groups had comparable bone levels (p=.29). CONCLUSION: Osteotome technique yielded higher primary stability than conventional drilling technique. However, this technique was not superior to conventional technique after 3 months.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".